Is Tim Duncan a pothead?

[balli]

Or more specifically, is Tim Duncan one of the biggest potheads in the NBA? I've always wondered about this, but not being local to San Antonio, I don't hear much about Duncan.

I know he has this squeaky clean image, but I can't help but think that he would be. First off, he's from an island nation and consequently still acts as chill as that upbringing probably affords. Secondly, I know video games are his favorite activity. Third, when it comes down to it, potheads are usually pretty dorky and Timmy D is definitely that. Fourth, I'm a huge pothead myself and I'd like to think I'm intuitive enough to recognize my own kind. Other than that I have no concrete reasons for wondering. Can anyone in San Antonio shed some light on this for me? :smokin

[DarrinS]

dump

[Brutalis]

I highly doubt he is but if he was it would not surprise me. Tim must have some kind of activity because he isn't a normal jackass.

[remingtonbo2001]

Are you serious?

:lol Coming from someone that's smoked a fair share, I seriously doubt it.

Basketball consumes his life, then he has his family.

Where would he find time to light up?

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

He plays extreme chess in his spare time.

[xtremesteven33]

Ive been wanting to post this thread for a LONG time now cause i heard from a very good source that Tim Duncan either IS or WAS a pothead, but he has definitely smoked hash before......

I will NEVER reveal my source.....dont want to cost him his job.....

[Phil Hellmuth]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5231/sizedhollisterpolicechisy3.jpg

"We will look into this matter, at this point of time, there is not enough evidence and just pure speculation"

[balli]

That's the thing. It's just a hunch, but I think it's a good one. He's not going out to clubs, cheating on his wife with groupies or getting hammered drunk. I could see him however, coming home from shootaround, kissing his wife hello and taking a bong snap before spending two hours on call of duty 4.

[xtremesteven33]

That's the thing. It's just a hunch, but I think it's a good one. He's not going out to clubs, cheating on his wife with groupies or getting hammered drunk. I could see him however, coming home from shootaround, kissing his wife hello and taking a bong snap before spending two hours on call of duty 4.


yea it does make sense but this person told me this like 2 years ago and its never left my mind.....i mean look at his skin discoloration, his nappy hair at times, and his laid back personality.....

but there is no CONCRETE evidence......just speculation....

[balli]

Ive been wanting to post this thread for a LONG time now cause i heard from a very good source that Tim Duncan either IS or WAS a pothead, but he has definitely smoked hash before......

Hash, huh? Good for timmy. :clap

[ChuckD]

While it wouldn't totally surprise me if he occasionally partook, I doubt seriously if he's a "pothead". That implies a level of smokage inconsistent with superior performance. Someone like 'Sheed, who's really never reached his full potential, shown only in glimpses, might be a 'head.

[remingtonbo2001]

It wouldn't be any revelation if it was something he has tried.

With random drug testing, his desire to perform at the highest level, and most importantly, being a family oriented person, I can't imagine Tim being a pothead at 31.

Really, what would Bruce say? What about D-Rob? Oh and Pop?

[Kriz-Maxima]

Pop could use a hit from time to time.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Vbookie Odds just released:

Occasional Pot Smoker: 1 to 1

Huge Pot Head: 5 to 1

Doesn't smoke: 7 to 1

Hasn't smoked in his life: 50 to 1

[xtremesteven33]

It wouldn't be any revelation if it was something he has tried.

With random drug testing, his desire to perform at the highest level, and most importantly, being a family oriented person, I can't imagine Tim being a pothead at 31.

Really, what would Bruce say? What about D-Rob? Oh and Pop?



POTHEAD in College man....and ocasionally now.....

[ChuckD]

Pop could use a hit from time to time.
:lmao I can't even imagine Pop in a faded state, giggling and asking if anyone has a bag of Cheetos...

[xtremesteven33]

:lmao I can't even imagine Pop in a faded state, giggling and asking if anyone has a bag of Cheetos...



maybe a bag of Potato chips

[balli]

I grew up with this guy Jackson Vroman who played in the league for a couple of seasons. He told me that Steve Nash (and a lot of players) played games high all the time. Like running out to their cars before tip-off high.

I think marijuana could be very detrimental, but I also think it depends on the person's ability to operate under stoned circumstances. I think Sheeds probably got some anger & other issues in his life, other than being a pothead, that have kept him down. Still, in his case, I'm sure all the weed hasn't helped.


POTHEAD in College man....and ocasionally now.....
Probably makes the most sense. I forgot he's in his 30's. That shit gets old after a few years.

[Kobayagi]

Ocasional sticky icky couldn't hurt him.

[ehz33satx]

maybe a bag of Potato chips

HEB brand potato chips. With HEB brand cola. On HEB brand paper plates.

[makedamnsure]

I could totally see Tim smoking during college. But not anymore.

[xtremesteven33]

what does this have to do with smoking ganja

its medically proven when you smoke marijuana heavily and then quit, you get skin discoloration in either your lips or face skin.....

[Phil Hellmuth]

its medically proven when you smoke marijuana heavily and then quit, you get skin discoloration in either your lips or face skin.....

source?

[pjjrfan]

its medically proven when you smoke marijuana heavily and then quit, you get skin discoloration in either your lips or face skin.....
Oh shoot, is that what it is?

[xtremesteven33]

source?


google it FOO

[Phil Hellmuth]

google it FOO

lol...a google search doesn't equal truth and I don't want to search for something you strongly believe. Provide me your source that backs up your statement so that it sounds more plausible.

[spursfaninla]

its medically proven when you smoke marijuana heavily and then quit, you get skin discoloration in either your lips or face skin.....

:smokin

:donkey

I don't think that is even at urban legend level of "that could almost be true"

[e20dylan]

i need more role model pot heads in my life. ricky williams was dissapointing. he needed the whizzinator

[e20dylan]

"its medically proven when you smoke marijuana heavily and then quit, you get skin discoloration in either your lips or face skin..... "


thats completely false by the way..

[CubanMustGo]

This crap belongs in the troll forum, if anywhere.

[xtremesteven33]

lol...a google search doesn't equal truth and I don't want to search for something you strongly believe. Provide me your source that backs up your statement so that it sounds more plausible.


I cannot quote you the source or where i heard it from but from my knowledge it is a condition that is medically accepted by some doctors....


from my knowledge

[balli]

This crap belongs in the troll forum, if anywhere.

Listen asshole. People smoke marijuana, deal with it. I hate to break it to you, but I guarantee at whatever office you work at you're around people who are high every time they come back from lunch and you don't even know about it. Others smoking doesn't affect you and quite frankly, since you're such an invasive and holier than thou dick about it, it's none of your fucking business to begin with. If you don't want to have to face the reality that marijuana exists than you shouldn't have opened the fucking thread. Asshole.

[DAF86]

Can a NBA player be a pothead and not be suspended?

[Findog]

POTHEAD in College man....and ocasionally now.....

Isn't that all of us? That's how it is for me.

[Kori Ellis]

Can a NBA player be a pothead and not be suspended?

They get randomly tested. You don't get suspended right away.

Here's the punishment.

(A) For the first such violation, the player shall be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(B) For the second such violation, the player shall be fined $25,000 and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(C) For the third such violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program; and

(D) For any subsequent violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games longer than his immediately preceding suspension for violating the Marijuana Program and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program.

[Findog]

As an aside, whenever I play pickup basketball, I am MUCH MORE effective if I'm stoned. Don't know how that works. I guess my right brain just takes over and I go on pure instinct.

I'm a better driver when I'm high. I don't speed, I observe all traffic laws with much better precision and I can focus better. Other things, not so much. I can't play chess very well when I'm stoned. Ordinarily I can see 4 or 5 moves ahead, but when I'm high that goes down to about 1 or 2 moves.

The thing about pot is that if you become a pothead, it dims the work ethic. It's mostly harmless, but anything done to excess will have consequences.

Isn't Duncan married with kids? I doubt he's a pothead in that case.

[balli]

Can a NBA player be a pothead and not be suspended?

Yes. They're told exactly when they will be tested and most of the carry about 6% body fat anyway so they can clean thei systems in a matter of days.

That's why the whole Ricky Williams thing in the NFL was such bullshit. They don't care if the players smoke, they just care about preserving the image that they don't smoke. That's why they're told when their tests will take place. There would be a rebellion in the NBA and NFL if they actually tried to stop people from using. Ricky Williams disn't want to play ball though and flunked his tests anyway. Then they made a martyr out of him, knowing full-well that about 70% of the league uses marijuana.

[Kori Ellis]

Oh and they get randomly tested up to 4 times a year, plus they can be tested at any time if there is "reasonable cause" to think they are on drugs.

[balli]

As an aside, whenever I play pickup basketball, I am MUCH MORE effective if I'm stoned. Don't know how that works. I guess my right brain just takes over and I go on pure instinct.

I'm a better driver when I'm high. I don't speed, I observe all traffic laws with much better precision and I can focus better. Other things, not so much. I can't play chess very well when I'm stoned. Ordinarily I can see 4 or 5 moves ahead, but when I'm high that goes down to about 1 or 2 moves.

The thing about pot is that if you become a pothead, it dims the work ethic. It's mostly harmless, but anything done to excess will have consequences.

Isn't Duncan married with kids? I doubt he's a pothead in that case.

Exactly. It's funny that people think it would impact athletic performance negatively. I wouldn't say I play any better high, but I certainly don't play worse. And when it comes to driving, I like you, am about a million times safer and more relaxed on the road while stoned. If I don't smoke I speed, get road rage and accelerate towards red lights and such.

[Kori Ellis]

Yes. They're told exactly when they will be tested ...

No they don't. Most players know they get tested in training camp. But they don't get notified exactly of the other tests.

[DAF86]

They get randomly tested. You don't get suspended right away.

Here's the punishment.

(A) For the first such violation, the player shall be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(B) For the second such violation, the player shall be fined $25,000 and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(C) For the third such violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program; and

(D) For any subsequent violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games longer than his immediately preceding suspension for violating the Marijuana Program and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program.

Thanks :tu

So if Tim were a Pothead shouldn't we know by now then. I don't think he is.

[balli]

They get randomly tested. You don't get suspended right away.

Here's the punishment.

(A) For the first such violation, the player shall be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(B) For the second such violation, the player shall be fined $25,000 and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(C) For the third such violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program; and

(D) For any subsequent violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games longer than his immediately preceding suspension for violating the Marijuana Program and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program.

I read aBaron Davis interview once where he said 85% of the league smokes regularly and that every single test he's ever taken, he knew about in advance. The league isn't serious about curbing marijuana use. They couldn't be- all their players would be suspended.

[Kori Ellis]

:lol @ the poster who said you can tell Tim smokes by his nappy hair and laid back attitude. :lmao

[remingtonbo2001]

Listen asshole. People smoke marijuana, deal with it. I hate to break it to you, but I guarantee at whatever office you work at you're around people who are high every time they come back from lunch and you don't even know about it. Others smoking doesn't affect you and quite frankly, since you're such an invasive and holier than thou dick about it, it's none of your fucking business to begin with. If you don't want to have to face the reality that marijuana exists than you shouldn't have opened the fucking thread. Asshole.

:lol

This is a prime example of what marijuana abuse can do to brain chemistry.

CubanMustGo makes a valid point. Why resort to anger?

While it is about a Spurs player, it doesn't really have much to do with Spurs Basketball. It has to do with the lifestyle choice of a Spur player.

While I wouldn't put it in the Troll forum, the Club might be a more suitable venue.

[Brutalis]

They get randomly tested. You don't get suspended right away.

Here's the punishment.

(A) For the first such violation, the player shall be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(B) For the second such violation, the player shall be fined $25,000 and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program;

(C) For the third such violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program; and

(D) For any subsequent violation, the player shall be suspended for five (5) games longer than his immediately preceding suspension for violating the Marijuana Program and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the Marijuana Program, be required to enter the Marijuana Program.

Geez what is the freaking Mary Jane Program all about?

[Kori Ellis]

I read aBaron Davis interview once where he said 85% of the league smokes regularly and that every single test he's ever taken, he knew about in advance. The league isn't serious about curbing marijuana use. They couldn't be- all their players would be suspended.

I know people personally who are in the league. Many guys have already tested positive of a few times, but you don't know about it because it's not in the press (and because they don't get suspended on the first couple violations).

I might believe that some stars might be informed ahead of time about the tests, plus everyone knows about the training camp tests. But it's not the regular practice that everyone knows about the tests ahead of time. If it was, then no one would test positive. And there are several guys who have tested positive.

And yes, there are some teams in the league that have a lot of pot smokers on them. And there are some players who smoke pot regularly. I don't think Tim Duncan is one of them.

[manufor3]

this stuff is hilarious

[SpursFanFirst]

I'm a better driver when I'm high.

:bang Fantastic.

You're probably a safer driver when you're drunk too, huh?

[Kori Ellis]

Here's the penalties for steroids, in case anyone cares:
Steroids, Performance-Enhancing Drugs

(A) For the first such violation, the player shall be suspended for ten (10) games and required to enter the SPED Program;

(B) For the second such violation, the player shall be suspended for twenty-five (25) games and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the SPED Program, be required to enter the SPED Program;

(C) for the third such violation, the player shall be suspended for one (1) year from the date of such violation and, if the player is not then subject to in-patient or aftercare treatment in the SPED Program, be required to enter the SPED Program; and

(D) for the fourth such violation, the player shall be immediately dismissed and disqualified from any association with the NBA or any of its Teams in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(a) below.


And for all other hard drugs, you get kicked out of the league right away (like Chris Anderson).

[Lackluster]

the whizzinator

rubba donga mate!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40689000/jpg/_40689740_elkington-ap200.jpg

[e20dylan]

As an aside, whenever I play pickup basketball, I am MUCH MORE effective if I'm stoned. Don't know how that works. I guess my right brain just takes over and I go on pure instinct.

I'm a better driver when I'm high. I don't speed, I observe all traffic laws with much better precision and I can focus better. Other things, not so much. I can't play chess very well when I'm stoned. Ordinarily I can see 4 or 5 moves ahead, but when I'm high that goes down to about 1 or 2 moves.

The thing about pot is that if you become a pothead, it dims the work ethic. It's mostly harmless, but anything done to excess will have consequences.

Isn't Duncan married with kids? I doubt he's a pothead in that case.


you think people stop smoking weed when they get married and have kids? even more reason to smoke man.

[remingtonbo2001]

:bang Fantastic.

You're probably a safer driver when you're drunk too, huh?

Being drunk and being high (marijuana) are completely different.

I prefer people drive sober. However, I prefer the stoned driver over the drunk driver anyday of the week.

You can't do that much damage driving 10mph.

[Phil Hellmuth]

I'm a better driver when I'm high. I don't speed, I observe all traffic laws with much better precision and I can focus better. Other things, not so much. I can't play chess very well when I'm stoned. Ordinarily I can see 4 or 5 moves ahead, but when I'm high that goes down to about 1 or 2 moves.
.

I agree here. Far LESS ROAD RAGE too. (at least for me)

[e20dylan]

rubba donga mate!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40689000/jpg/_40689740_elkington-ap200.jpg


best investment ive ever made

[duncan228]

I'm pretty thorough in my Duncan info. I don't think he's a heavy/regular pot smoker now and probably not the last few years. College is a lifetime ago, whatever occured there is history.

[to21]

I once asked this question when him and Antonio Daniels were on the boat (float) their first championship parade. He walked pasted us and his eyes were blood-shot red, plus he and AD were giggling the whole time.

I remember asking my boys......"Doesn't he look high?" We laughed at the notion and gave him the benefit of the doubt (even to this day).

I don't think he smokes, that wouldn't be TD.

[ClingingMars]

i'd be disappointed in tim. but eh, he's probably done it before.

- Mars

[Agloco]

Is this really the best shit you could come up with ballijuana?

Lay off the hocus-pocus dude......

[Hillcrest]

I grew up with this guy Jackson Vroman who played in the league for a couple of seasons. He told me that Steve Nash (and a lot of players) played games high all the time. Like running out to their cars before tip-off high.

I think marijuana could be very detrimental, but I also think it depends on the person's ability to operate under stoned circumstances. I think Sheeds probably got some anger & other issues in his life, other than being a pothead, that have kept him down. Still, in his case, I'm sure all the weed hasn't helped.


Probably makes the most sense. I forgot he's in his 30's. That shit gets old after a few years.

my friend knows shaq. word is, among others, that our own damon stoudamire lights up a little before games because he gets nervous and it just helps take the edge off.

and, yeah, it's not uncommon at all.

[Mugshot]

Oh and they get randomly tested up to 4 times a year, plus they can be tested at any time if there is "reasonable cause" to think they are on drugs.

does that include offseason?

[ClingingMars]

It's definitely a problem that the league needs to work on. It's an illegal activity, no better than any other crime.

- Mars

[whottt]

I could see Duncan smoking a little weed. I don't think it's that big of a deal culturally where he comes from...

Then again, I could also see him not smoking it.


In any case, I doubt he smokes a j right before a game or anything :lol



Really though, I don't think Duncan is a partier or stoner at all. He's definitely not partying during the regular season...he's too consistent.

You can tell the guys that party because they'll have games where they just drag ass for half the game...

Rasho
Beno
Tony
Elson


I'm not sure about Manu...he drags ass from time to time, but he also gets pretty beat up so it's understandable.

[greens]

He has a wife and two young children. Plus, he's very busy with basketball 24/7. Where would he find the time? No way!

[jag]

crofl

pops in a smoking circle, staying quiet with his eyes all shifty

the other people in the room freaking out about cia pop

:lmao

[jag]

He has a wife and two young children. Plus, he's very busy with basketball 24/7. Where would he find the time? No way!

I dont buy this argument. It's not like he's got to make an appointment or take a long trip to find somewhere to smoke pot. The process can take less than 5 mintues.

If you have time to go to the restroom to take a deuce, you have time to smoke a bowl...or blunt.


It's definitely a problem that the league needs to work on. It's an illegal activity, no better than any other crime.

- Mars

The fact that you can get prescriptions for it in CA does make it A LOT different than other "crimes." I wouldnt necessarily compare murder or rape to smoking pot with Tony Parker while playing NBA Live.

[DAF86]

It's definitely a problem that the league needs to work on. It's an illegal activity, no better than any other crime.

- Mars

Yes 'cuz smoking weed is just as bad as raping or killing.

[Behrooz24]

He and Mighty Mouse are best friends now http://smiliesftw.com/x/4205.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

[Dingle Barry]

:bang Fantastic.

You're probably a safer driver when you're drunk too, huh?

Ignorance is piss

[e20dylan]

i'd be disappointed in tim. but eh, he's probably done it before.

- Mars


you would be dissapointed? ROFL what a douche

[ancestron]

That's the thing. It's just a hunch, but I think it's a good one. He's not going out to clubs, cheating on his wife with groupies or getting hammered drunk. I could see him however, coming home from shootaround, kissing his wife hello and taking a bong snap before spending two hours on call of duty 4.


Yeah he's a stoner. He usually calls me up about once a week looking for that northern CA kind, since I can get it for about 30 bucks cheaper than Horry's guy. Whenever he has a game coming up he's usually kinda freakin out, but he manages to appear cool. He doesn't play call of duty either, he plays star wars battlefront, and goes by the name nottyDREADLOCKrasta. He likes that good one hitter quitter stuff so it doesnt effect his respiratory system very much, cuz he does have to run a lot at work.

[duncan228]

Nicely done ancestron.

[mbass]

Or more specifically, is Tim Duncan one of the biggest potheads in the NBA? I've always wondered about this, but not being local to San Antonio, I don't hear much about Duncan.

I know he has this squeaky clean image, but I can't help but think that he would be. First off, he's from an island nation and consequently still acts as chill as that upbringing probably affords. Secondly, I know video games are his favorite activity. Third, when it comes down to it, potheads are usually pretty dorky and Timmy D is definitely that. Fourth, I'm a huge pothead myself and I'd like to think I'm intuitive enough to recognize my own kind. Other than that I have no concrete reasons for wondering. Can anyone in San Antonio shed some light on this for me? :smokin

You are dishonest - and what a wonderful way to start a rumor. Character assassination at its finest. You are truly scum.

[Tek_XX]

I'm going to go out on a huge limb and say YES tim has smoked weed before. Does he do it now, nobody here knows so it's all speculation. But it wouldn't suprise me considering he's from the "islands" and his demeanor is really laid back.

I'm all for marijuana legalization.

[ancestron]

You are dishonest - and what a wonderful way to start a rumor. Character assassination at its finest. You are truly scum.

damn.

chill out man.

here, smoke this...
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg127/oavm/realjoint.gif

[mbass]

Exactly. It's funny that people think it would impact athletic performance negatively. I wouldn't say I play any better high, but I certainly don't play worse. And when it comes to driving, I like you, am about a million times safer and more relaxed on the road while stoned. If I don't smoke I speed, get road rage and accelerate towards red lights and such.


Sounds as tho you have some big time problems.

[SpursFanFirst]

Ignorance is piss

What?

[mbass]

I dont buy this argument. It's not like he's got to make an appointment or take a long trip to find somewhere to smoke pot. The process can take less than 5 mintues.


I suppose it depends on what type of role model he wants to be for his kids -
and if he wants to sneak away and do it then I would say he's a hypocrite.

If you have time to go to the restroom to take a deuce, you have time to smoke a bowl...or blunt.



The fact that you can get prescriptions for it in CA does make it A LOT different than other "crimes." I wouldnt necessarily compare murder or rape to smoking pot with Tony Parker while playing NBA Live.

[mbass]

damn.

chill out man.

here, smoke this...
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg127/oavm/realjoint.gif

It's a generational thing.

[jag]

^^^^

Hold on, i didnt say all that..

[gospursgojas]

I've never smoked weed in my life.

Is that wrong?

[balli]

You are dishonest - and what a wonderful way to start a rumor. Character assassination at its finest. You are truly scum.


Character assasination? Character fucking assasination? Listen man, in my book, people who don't smoke weed are the ones with character problems. And how the fuck am I dishonest? I specifically called this a hunch and speculation...


Suck my balls bro.

[balli]

I've never smoked weed in my life.

Is that wrong?

No. But if you hate it, without trying it or really knowing anything about it other than what DARE and the govt. feed you, it is.

[jag]

No. But if you hate it, without trying it or really knowing anything about it other than what DARE and the govt. feed you, it is.

what's your AV?

that symbol isnt Masonic...but i can't remember what it is.

Star and Crescent...?

[balli]

what's your AV?

that symbol isnt Masonic...but i can't remember what it is.

Star and Crescent...?

From wiki:

Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the five pillars of Islam, but this is pure conjecture.

[fyatuk]

:bang Fantastic.

You're probably a safer driver when you're drunk too, huh?

I don't know about Findog, but no one in their right mind wants my brother driving unless he's high or half-drunk. Even our mother wouldn't get in the car with him unless he's had a few drinks or smoked.

[fyatuk]

Character assasination? Character fucking assasination? Listen man, in my book, people who don't smoke weed are the ones with character problems. And how the fuck am I dishonest? I specifically called this a hunch and speculation...


Should I be offended since I don't smoke weed? Not that I never did, but middle school was a long time ago and that was a boring ass month.

[balli]

I don't know about Findog, but no one in their right mind wants my brother driving unless he's high or half-drunk. Even our mother wouldn't get in the car with him unless he's had a few drinks or smoked.

Not to criticize, but in my own life even driving a little drunk is a thing I won't do. (Not that I'd even get drunk to begin with) Unlike marijuana it impacts coordination, decision making and reaction time. I'm sure it chills people out, but it does so by making them slower and stupider.

Weed doesn't do that. All it does is allow you to reprioritize things, so that that slow ass corolla in front of you becomes less of a nuisance and making the light is no longer a matter of life or death.

PS. B roy's heating up.

[fyatuk]

Not to criticize, but in my own life even driving a little drunk is a thing I won't do. (Not that I'd even get drunk to begin with) Unlike marijuana it impacts coordination, decision making and reaction time. I'm sure it chills people out, but it does so by making them slower and stupider.

Weed doesn't do that. All it does is allow you to reprioritize things, so that that slow ass corolla in front of you becomes less of a nuisance and making the light is no longer a matter of life or death.


With my brother it's just that he pays more attention when he's had a few drinks. He won't drive if he's had more than a few drinks. When he's sober he's aggressive and angry and distracted perpetually. Put a few in him and he knows he's not right so he doesn't push it and focuses on driving.

I wouldn't want most people to do it, but it is an insane improvement for him.

[ClingingMars]

The fact that you can get prescriptions for it in CA does make it A LOT different than other "crimes." I wouldnt necessarily compare murder or rape to smoking pot with Tony Parker while playing NBA Live.

that's medicinal, which is quite different than recreational.

I just hope Tim maintains his positive role model image and stays away from that crap.

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

you would be dissapointed? ROFL what a douche

it's ILLEGAL, and it's setting a bad example for the kiddies.

- Mars

[balli]

Should I be offended since I don't smoke weed? Not that I never did, but middle school was a long time ago and that was a boring ass month.

That was a generalization and a joke, but yeah, the majority of people who actively dislike marijuana (like the people who came into this thread to call it disgusting) usually know nothing about it. That's what offends me.

This plant is a drought resistant crop that can grow a tremendous amount per acre. It's oil can power automobiles (such as the first model T), and is rich in omega 3 fatty acids and proteins; hence it is a suitable food source. It's fibers can be made into building products for much cheaper than wood, while being less costly to the environment. You can make clothing out of it. Paper (Such as the hemp paper that the first Declaration of independence was printed on) can be made from it.

It helps fibromaelgia patients who otherwise take government sanctioned heroin in the form of OC's. It helps with anxiety, depression, glaucoma. It allows cancer patients to eat. Basically, when you smoke it you become a more moral, caring understanding person. It's tastes and smells mimic that of every natural fruit on earth. It looks like green mountains covered in golden dew when viewed under a microscope.

I don't understand people who hate this drug and amazing plant, without knowing anything about it.

[ClingingMars]

Character assasination? Character fucking assasination? Listen man, in my book, people who don't smoke weed are the ones with character problems. And how the fuck am I dishonest? I specifically called this a hunch and speculation...


Suck my balls bro.

because I don't break the law I have bad character? what a joke you are.

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

No. But if you hate it, without trying it or really knowing anything about it other than what DARE and the govt. feed you, it is.

OH NOEZ TEH GOV'T PROPAGANDA, LOOK OUT DEWD!!!

- Mars

[balli]

because I don't break the law I have bad character? what a joke you are.

- Mars

Again. You hate this plant:

This plant is a drought resistant crop that can grow a tremendous amount per acre. It's oil can power automobiles (such as the first model T), and is rich in omega 3 fatty acids and proteins; hence it is a suitable food source. It's fibers can be made into building products for much cheaper than wood, while being less costly to the environment. You can make clothing out of it. Paper (Such as the hemp paper that the first Declaration of independence was printed on) can be made from it.

It helps fibromaelgia patients who otherwise take government sanctioned heroin in the form of OC's. It helps with anxiety, depression, glaucoma. It allows cancer patients to eat. Basically, when you smoke it you become a more moral, caring understanding person. It's tastes and smells mimic that of every natural fruit on earth. It looks like green mountains covered in golden dew when viewed under a microscope.

[ClingingMars]

Again. You hate this plant:

This plant is a drought resistant crop that can grow a tremendous amount per acre. It's oil can power automobiles (such as the first model T), and is rich in omega 3 fatty acids and proteins; hence it is a suitable food source. It's fibers can be made into building products for much cheaper than wood, while being less costly to the environment. You can make clothing out of it. Paper (Such as the hemp paper that the first Declaration of independence was printed on) can be made from it.

It helps fibromaelgia patients who otherwise take government sanctioned heroin in the form of OC's. It helps with anxiety, depression, glaucoma. It allows cancer patients to eat. Basically, when you smoke it you become a more moral, caring understanding person. It's tastes and smells mimic that of every natural fruit on earth. It looks like green mountains covered in golden dew when viewed under a microscope.

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars

[word]

As an aside, whenever I play pickup basketball, I am MUCH MORE effective if I'm stoned.

In your mind. But what's the difference really, between really sucking and just sucking. Show us your game stats.

I could have swore in that Utah game they were ALL high.

[antihero496]

what does it matter?
I think it would be so cool if he weren't a ball player, cuz he's very down to earth, and I'd love to smoke w/ him but he is a ball player, and he is a role model, so if he does spark up, he best keep it under wraps.

[Phil Hellmuth]

I've never smoked weed in my life.

Is that wrong?

no, but I think it is harmless and in your interest to try it and experience it at least once.

[ATXSPUR]

Watching the potheads and the jingoistic conservatives on here go at it about weed is HILARIOUS!

[Phil Hellmuth]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars

this is a textbook case of a strawmen fallacy argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please try again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars
:lmao

- TheSanityAnnex

[ATXSPUR]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars

BY GUM!!!

[balli]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars

Phil's right, it's a big time strawman argument, but even if it weren't, it would still be a terrible one.

Basically, what you are saying mars, is that you're a lemming who will do whatever your government wants of you, even if you know it to be wrong. That sir, is the very definition of a dangerous and foolish man.

[Findog]

:bang Fantastic.

You're probably a safer driver when you're drunk too, huh?

I almost never drink. I don't like the calories and my dad is an alcoholic.

Pot is mostly harmless, unless done to excess.

[balli]

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, associate professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School


I began my study of marijuana in 1967 because I was concerned that young people were harming themselves by ignoring authorities’ warnings about a dangerous drug. I had hoped to write a paper that would definitively establish a scientific basis for this concern, and publish it in a widely read medium.
It was not long before I realized that despite my training in science and medicine, I had, like almost every other citizen of this country, been brainwashed by the United States government into believing that cannabis is a terribly dangerous drug. By 1971, the year Harvard University Press published Marihuana Reconsidered, I knew that, far more harmful than any inherent psychopharmacological property of this substance, was the way we as a society were dealing with its use. While marijuana is, in fact, remarkably free of toxicity, the consequences of annually arresting 300,000 mostly young people were not. Once I grasped the absurdity of this prohibition, I became devoted to the cause of changing these laws.
The development of marijuana laws began with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which was based on the same myths as the movie Reefer Madness — myths which have long since been abandoned. The prohibition itself should have been discarded after the publication in 1972 of the report of the Nixon-appointed National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. The report was titled “Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding,” and it affirmed the lack of a sound basis for prohibition. The Commission recommended the elimination of all penalties for personal possession and use of marijuana by adults, and for the not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana between adults. Instead, marijuana laws and their enforcement have become increasingly severe, buttressed by “new” myths dressed in scientific costume such as the present notion, developed largely in England and Australia, that marijuana causes schizophrenia.
The marijuana sector of the Drug War has seen annual increases in both its cost (now estimated to be about $11 billion) and the number of arrests. Marijuana arrests now constitute nearly 44 percent of all drug arrests in the U.S. The Uniform Crime Report figures for 2006 reveal that 829,625 people were arrested on marijuana charges, nearly a 15 percent increase from 2005. Nine out of ten were arrested for mere possession. More than 10 million people have been arrested on marijuana charges since 1990, and 75 percent of them were 30 or younger at the time of arrest.
Despite the increasing number of arrests, the growing demands of employers for urine tests, and the ubiquity of misinformation purveyed by the government and anti-marijuana organizations, the number of Americans who experiment with or regularly use this substance continues to grow. A December 2002 CNN/Time magazine survey found that 47 percent of American adults had tried marijuana. The number of people who use it regularly has increased to about 15 million.
This expanding use can no longer be dismissed as simply a youthful fad. It is a clear sign that adults who have a desire or need to stretch their consciousness are discovering that the least costly agent of this kind of experience is offered by marijuana. If used properly, it leads to a gentle alteration of consciousness, there is very little risk to health, the experience does not lead to any kind of antisocial behavior, and it is relatively (or would be, without the prohibition tariff) inexpensive. Marijuana has become part of our culture, and it is here to stay.
There are two other categories of use as well: medicine and enhancement, both of which overlap to some extent with each other and with recreational uses. Enhancement refers to that capacity of the marijuana high to add to the strength, worth, beauty, or other desirable qualities of experiences ranging from food and sex to creativity and appreciation of the natural world (see here for more information). So many people in the last decade have discovered its remarkable and versatile uses as a medicine that twelve states have now adopted legislation or initiatives which allow for its medicinal use. Unfortunately, the federal government, insisting that it has no medical utility, continues its merciless crackdown on patients, their doctors, and the people who grow this medicine within the legal limitations specified by the particular state.
The many thousands of patients who use marijuana for the treatment of a number of symptoms and syndromes do so because they find it to be as or more effective, and generally less toxic, than the conventionally prescribed medicines it replaces, plus it is less expensive, even at prohibition-inflated prices. Despite the federal government’s insistence that marijuana is more of a poison than a medicine, more states are now considering legislation or initiatives to make it available as a medicine, and some are considering initiatives to decriminalize it by reducing penalties for possession of small quantities.
Whatever interim changes we decide to take, ultimately we will have to cut the knot by giving marijuana the same status as alcohol — legalizing it for all uses, and largely removing it from medical and criminal control systems.

[Findog]

I agree here. Far LESS ROAD RAGE too. (at least for me)

Oh yeah, I get road rage really bad. And when I'm stoned, I don't much care what other drivers are doing, I'm not in a hurry to get there.

[mbass]

that's medicinal, which is quite different than recreational.

I just hope Tim maintains his positive role model image and stays away from that crap.

- Mars
So do I - and I notice some differences in levels of maturity (?) here.

[balli]

So do I - and I notice some differences in levels of maturity (?) here.

Yeah you think the guy flailing bad arguments and jumping to conclusions about anarchy is more mature than the guy quoating Harvard med school professors. You were finished two pages ago mbass, go away.

[himat]

Are you serious?

:lol Coming from someone that's smoked a fair share, I seriously doubt it.

Basketball consumes his life, then he has his family.

Where would he find time to light up?

When he chilled with Sheed.
:lol

[ancestron]

marijuana FTW

[balli]

^ Yesssssssss!

[Phil Hellmuth]

good teamwork guys. i think we have won the battle. remain on guard tho. A second wave of attacks might come.

:lol :lol :lol

[fyatuk]

That was a generalization and a joke, but yeah, the majority of people who actively dislike marijuana (like the people who came into this thread to call it disgusting) usually know nothing about it. That's what offends me.


I realize it was. Call that my own warped sense of humor response ;)

And yeah, there's a lot of wonderful uses it can be put to. I'm a firm believer that it should be legalized, even though it's recreational use is just not for me.

[balli]

Cool & cool.

[jag]

good teamwork guys. i think we have won the battle. remain on guard tho. A second wave of attacks might come.

:lol :lol :lol

http://www.ci.sparks.nv.us/governing/departments/police/images/Sayno.gif

[YODA]

He plays extreme chess in his spare time.


where?? is he good?

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I doubt Duncan does it.

He doesn't seem like the type who'd risk it given that he has to take random drug tests throughout the year (doesn't the NBA require this?) and he's got an established "good guy" image that he's got to protect.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

where?? is he good?
He plays in his basement against the mafia.
Checkmate = a day in the snakepit for the loser.
That's how serious he is about it.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars

Who the hell do hang with, priests?

[TampaDude]

Or more specifically, is Tim Duncan one of the biggest potheads in the NBA? I've always wondered about this, but not being local to San Antonio, I don't hear much about Duncan.

I know he has this squeaky clean image, but I can't help but think that he would be. First off, he's from an island nation and consequently still acts as chill as that upbringing probably affords. Secondly, I know video games are his favorite activity. Third, when it comes down to it, potheads are usually pretty dorky and Timmy D is definitely that. Fourth, I'm a huge pothead myself and I'd like to think I'm intuitive enough to recognize my own kind. Other than that I have no concrete reasons for wondering. Can anyone in San Antonio shed some light on this for me? :smokin

Dammit...if I told you once, I told you a thousand times, bitch...stop gagging on my semen and SWALLOW!!!

[Ronaldo McDonald]

TD does seem like the type of guy that would try at least eveything (that is within reasonable limits) once though. I mean, he's got a tat and he pierced his tongue. While in college and back home I'm sure he probably smoked a couple of times.

[duncan228]

TD does seem like the type of guy that would try at least eveything (that is within reasonable limits) once though. I mean, he's got a tat and he pierced his tongue. While in college and back home I'm sure he probably smoked a couple of times.

Here's the stud, it's long gone.
And he's got more than one tattoo.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/gifs/timtongue7zv.gif

[jag]

Here's the stud, it's long gone.
And he's got more than one tattoo.


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/timtongue7zv.gif

Your TD knowledge knows no bounds.

:worthy:

[duncan228]

Your TD knowledge knows no bounds.

:worthy:

:)

I try.

[Budkin]

Pot smokers should be locked in jail for 150 years.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

I have it on pretty good authority that he was a fairly large pothead back in the day. I have no idea if he still is.

[HighLowLobForBig-50]

:lol

[mbass]

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, associate professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School

The Harvard professor's argument is so 1970s. For a more recent perspective, go to medline and type in adolescents and marijuana use. You will get more up to date data on how marijuana affects the adolescent brain. An example:

Abstinent adolescent marijuana users show altered fMRI response during spatial working memory.Schweinsburg AD, Nagel BJ, Schweinsburg BC, Park A, Theilmann RJ, Tapert SF.
University of California San Diego Department of Psychology, 9500 Gilman Dr., 0109, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, USA; Veterans Medical Research Foundation, 3350 La Jolla Village Dr. 151B, San Diego, CA 92161, USA.

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance among teenagers, yet little is known about the possible neural influence of heavy marijuana use during adolescence. We previously demonstrated an altered functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activity related to spatial working memory (SWM) among adolescents who were heavy users of after an average of 8 days of abstinence, but the persisting neural effects remain unclear. To characterize the potentially persisting neurocognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in adolescence, we examined fMRI response during SWM among abstinent marijuana-using teens. Participants were 15 MJ teens and 17 demographically similar non-using controls, ages 16-18. Teens underwent biweekly urine toxicology screens to ensure abstinence for 28 days before fMRI acquisition. Groups performed similarly on the SWM task, but MJ teens demonstrated lower activity in right dorsolateral prefrontal and occipital cortices, yet significantly more activation in right posterior parietal cortex. MJ teens showed abnormalities in brain response during a SWM task compared with controls, even after 1 month of abstinence. The activation pattern among MJ teens may reflect different patterns of utilization of spatial rehearsal and attention strategies, and could indicate altered neurodevelopment or persisting abnormalities associated with heavy marijuana use in adolescence.

[jag]

lol at a medical debate between people who probably never went to college.

[BIG z]

Why would timmy take a risk like that???

[Mister Sinister]

Secondly, I know video games are his favorite activity. Third, when it comes down to it, potheads are usually pretty dorky and Timmy D is definitely that.
Dude, are you fucking nuts? By that logic, I should have a cloud of pot smoke following me around 24/7.

[~Sweetmelody~]

Here's the stud, it's long gone.
And he's got more than one tattoo.


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/timtongue7zv.gif


Totally off topic: Last week I had a very interesting dream with Tim… let’s just say the man was fantastic! :oops

Immediately after I woke up I thought of you--- of the beat down you would give me if I gave you all the details.
:lol

[duncan228]

Totally off topic: Last week I had a very interesting dream with Tim… let’s just say the man was fantastic! :oops

Immediately after I woke up I thought of you--- of the beat down you would give me if I gave you all the details.
:lol

I'm not even sure how to respond.

Maybe you want to PM me. :lol

[Mister Sinister]

I'm not even sure how to respond.

Maybe you want to PM me. :lol
:lmao Damn it, now you owe me a new soda.

[duncan228]

:lmao Damn it, now you owe me a new soda.

Keyboard too?

[RussN]

The Harvard professor's argument is so 1970s. For a more recent perspective, go to medline and type in adolescents and marijuana use. You will get more up to date data on how marijuana affects the adolescent brain. An example:

Abstinent adolescent marijuana users show altered fMRI response during spatial working memory.Schweinsburg AD, Nagel BJ, Schweinsburg BC, Park A, Theilmann RJ, Tapert SF.
University of California San Diego Department of Psychology, 9500 Gilman Dr., 0109, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, USA; Veterans Medical Research Foundation, 3350 La Jolla Village Dr. 151B, San Diego, CA 92161, USA.

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance among teenagers, yet little is known about the possible neural influence of heavy marijuana use during adolescence. We previously demonstrated an altered functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activity related to spatial working memory (SWM) among adolescents who were heavy users of after an average of 8 days of abstinence, but the persisting neural effects remain unclear. To characterize the potentially persisting neurocognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in adolescence, we examined fMRI response during SWM among abstinent marijuana-using teens. Participants were 15 MJ teens and 17 demographically similar non-using controls, ages 16-18. Teens underwent biweekly urine toxicology screens to ensure abstinence for 28 days before fMRI acquisition. Groups performed similarly on the SWM task, but MJ teens demonstrated lower activity in right dorsolateral prefrontal and occipital cortices, yet significantly more activation in right posterior parietal cortex. MJ teens showed abnormalities in brain response during a SWM task compared with controls, even after 1 month of abstinence. The activation pattern among MJ teens may reflect different patterns of utilization of spatial rehearsal and attention strategies, and could indicate altered neurodevelopment or persisting abnormalities associated with heavy marijuana use in adolescence.


You actually think a guy who smokes pot on a daily basis will actually be able to critically analyze current medical literature? It is a lot easier to quote an article that one of your high friends told you about to help back up your current illegal habit. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of the pot smoker’s so called “points”, but I seriously doubt they have the knowledge and or education to read an article from medline an know even the difference between the dependent and independent variables.

That is why the guy who started this thread probably works at a job that does not require a high level of education and yours does. This is just a hunch. Just like his of Timmy.

BTW. Who really cares if Tim smokes, has smoked, will smoke, as long as I can go to the Riverwalk and celebrate a championship every other year or so.

[mbass]

lol at a medical debate between people who probably never went to college.

Don't be so sure about that. Anyway, for those interested, here is a nice review article about the effects of marijuana - with abundant references (all relatively current I might add):








NIDA Home > Drugs of Abuse/Related Topics > Marijuana > InfoFacts > Marijuana


NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana

PDF Version [624K]
Printer-friendly Version
En Español



Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. A dry, shredded green/brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves of the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, it usually is smoked as a cigarette (joint, nail), or in a pipe (bong). It also is smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with marijuana, often in combination with another drug. It might also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form it is called hashish and, as a sticky black liquid, hash oil. Marijuana smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odor. There are countless street terms for marijuana including pot, herb, weed, grass, widow, ganja, and hash, as well as terms derived from trademarked varieties of cannabis, such as Bubble Gum, Northern Lights, Fruity Juice, Afghani #1, and a number of Skunk varieties.

The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). The membranes of certain nerve cells in the brain contain protein receptors that bind to THC. Once securely in place, THC kicks off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the high that users experience when they smoke marijuana.

Extent of Use

In 2004, 14.6 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed. About 6,000 people a day in 2004 used marijuana for the first time—2.1 million Americans. Of these, 63.8 percent were under age 181. In the last half of 2003, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the continental United States, at 12.6 percent, following cocaine (20 percent) and alcohol (48.7 percent)2.

Prevalence of lifetime,* annual, and use within the last 30 days for marijuana remained stable among 10th- and 12th-graders surveyed between 2003 and 2004. However, 8th-graders reported a significant decline in 30-day use and a significant increase in perceived harmfulness of smoking marijuana once or twice and regularly3. Trends in disapproval of using marijuana once or twice and occasionally rose among 8th-graders as well, and 10th-graders reported an increase in disapproval of occasional and regular use for the same period3.


Percentage of 8th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 16.7% 19.9% 23.1% 22.6% 22.2% 22.0%
Annual 13.0 15.8 18.3 17.7 16.9 16.5
30-day 7.8 9.1 11.3 10.2 9.7 9.7
Daily 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.4


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 20.3% 20.4% 19.2% 17.5% 16.3% 16.5%
Annual 15.6 15.4 14.6 12.8 11.8 12.2
30-day 9.1 9.2 8.3 7.5 6.4 6.6
Daily 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0




Percentage of 10th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 30.4% 34.1% 39.8% 42.3% 39.6% 40.9%
Annual 25.2 28.7 33.6 34.8 31.1 32.1
30-day 15.8 17.2 20.4 20.5 18.7 19.4
Daily 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 40.3% 40.1% 38.7% 36.4% 35.1% 34.1%
Annual 32.2 32.7 30.3 28.2 27.5 26.6
30-day 19.7 19.8 17.8 17.0 15.9 15.2
Daily 3.8 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.1




Percentage of 12th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 38.2% 41.7% 44.9% 49.6% 49.1% 49.7%
Annual 30.7 34.7 35.8 38.5 37.5 37.8
30-day 19.0 21.2 21.9 23.7 22.8 23.1
Daily 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.0


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 48.8% 49.0% 47.8% 46.1% 45.7% 44.8%
Annual 36.5 37.0 36.2 34.9 34.3 33.6
30-day 21.6 22.4 21.5 21.2 19.9 19.8
Daily 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.0


* "Lifetime" refers to use at least once during a respondent’s lifetime. "Annual" refers to use at least once during the year preceding an individual's response to the survey. "30-day" refers to use at least once during the 30 days preceding an individual’s response to the survey.



Effects on the Brain

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain.

In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement4.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.


Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana7. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.


Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers8. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent abuse can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways9. Smoking marijuana possibly increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers10.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens9,11. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke12. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells13. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


Other Health Effects

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited14. In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors15,16.


Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Depression17, anxiety17, and personality disturbances18 have been associated with chronic marijuana use. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off19,20,25.

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared with their nonsmoking peers21,22,23,24. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the 30 days prior to being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired, even after the students had not taken the drug for at least 24 hours20. These "heavy" marijuana abusers had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had abused marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of long-term heavy marijuana abusers to recall words from a list remained impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4 weeks25. Thus, some cognitive abilities may be restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term heavy use.

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. A study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a pre-employment urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and a 75-percent increase in absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use26. In another study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health27.


Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy

Research has shown that some babies born to women who abused marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli28, increased tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate neurological problems in development29. During the preschool years, marijuana-exposed children have been observed to perform tasks involving sustained attention and memory more poorly than nonexposed children do30,31. In the school years, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in problem-solving skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive30.


Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they abuse the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop abusing the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety32. They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug33.


Genetic Vulnerability

Scientists have found that whether an individual has positive or negative sensations after smoking marijuana can be influenced by heredity. A 1997 study demonstrated that identical male twins were more likely than nonidentical male twins to report similar responses to marijuana abuse, indicating a genetic basis for their response to the drug34. (Identical twins share all of their genes.)

It also was discovered that the twins' shared or family environment before age 18 had no detectable influence on their response to marijuana. Certain environmental factors, however, such as the availability of marijuana, expectations about how the drug would affect them, the influence of friends and social contacts, and other factors that differentiate experiences of identical twins were found to have an important effect.34


Treating Marijuana Problems

The latest treatment data indicate that, in 2002, marijuana was the primary drug of abuse in about 15 percent (289,532) of all admissions to treatment facilities in the United States. Marijuana admissions were primarily male (75 percent), White (55 percent), and young (40 percent were in the 15-–19 age range). Those in treatment for primary marijuana abuse had begun use at an early age; 56 percent had abused it by age 14 and 92 percent had abused it by 1835.

One study of adult marijuana abusers found comparable benefits from a 14-session cognitive-behavioral group treatment and a 2-session individual treatment that included motivational interviewing and advice on ways to reduce marijuana use. Participants were mostly men in their early thirties who had smoked marijuana daily for more than 10 years. By increasing patients' awareness of what triggers their marijuana abuse, both treatments sought to help patients devise avoidance strategies. Abuse, dependence symptoms, and psychosocial problems decreased for at least 1 year following both treatments; about 30 percent of the patients were abstinent during the last 3-month followup period36.

Another study suggests that giving patients vouchers that they can redeem for goods—such as movie passes, sporting equipment, or vocational training—may further improve outcomes37.

Although no medications are currently available for treating marijuana abuse, recent discoveries about the workings of the THC receptors have raised the possibility of eventually developing a medication that will block the intoxicating effects of THC. Such a medication might be used to prevent relapse to marijuana abuse by lessening or eliminating its appeal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H–27, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05–4061). Rockville, MD, 2004. NSDUH is an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 800-729-6686.

2 These data are from the annual Drug Abuse Warning Network, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The survey provides information about emergency department visits that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug. The latest data are available at 800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

3 These data are from the 2005 Monitoring the Future Survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The survey has tracked 12th-graders’ illicit drug use and related attitudes since 1975; in 1991, 8th- and 10th-graders were added to the study. The latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.

4 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, Johnson MR, et al. Cannabinoid receptor localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87(5):1932–1936, 1990.

5 Rodriguez de Fonseca F, et al. Activation of cortocotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science 276(5321):2050–2054, 1997.

6 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, et al. Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(17):10269–10273, 1998.

7 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

8 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158(6):596–601, 1993.

9 Tashkin DP. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152(5):525–530, 1990.

10 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 8(12):1071–1078, 1999.

11 Sridhar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby, NL Jr., et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285–288, 1994.

12 Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York. Plenum, 1975.

13 Cohen S. Adverse effects of marijuana: Selected issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 362:119–124, 1981.

14 Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91(11):1585–1614, 1996.

15 Friedman H, Newton C, Klein TW. Microbial infections, immunomodulation, and drugs of abuse. Clin Microbiol Rev 16(2):209–219, 2003.

16 Zhu LX, Sharma M, Stolina S, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunology 165(1):373–380, 2000.

17 Brook JS, Rosen Z, Brook DW. The effect of early marijuana use on later anxiety and depressive symptoms. NYS Psychologist 35–39, January 2001.

18 Brook JS, Cohen P, Brook DW. Longitudinal study of co-occurring psychiatric disorders and substance use. J Acad Child and Adolescent Psych 37(3):322–330, 1998.

19 Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA 275(7):521–527, 1996.

20 Block RI, Ghoneim MM. Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1–2):219–228, 1993.

21 Lynskey M, Hall W. The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction 95(11):1621–1630, 2000.

22 Kandel DB, Davies M. High school students who use crack and other drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(1):71–80, 1996.

23 Rob M, Reynolds I, Finlayson PF. Adolescent marijuana use: Risk factors and implications. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 24(1):45–56, 1990.

24 Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M. The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 89(10):1549–1554, 1999.

25 Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, et al. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58(10):909–915, 2001.

26 Zwerling C, Ryan J, Orav EJ. The efficacy of pre-employment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcome. JAMA 264(20):2639–2643, 1990.

27 Gruber AJ, Pope HG, Hudson JI, et al. Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Medicine 33(8):1415–1422, 2003.

28 Fried PA, Makin JE. Neonatal behavioural correlates of prenatal exposure to marihuana, cigarettes and alcohol in a low risk population. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 9(1):1–7, 1987.

29 Lester BM, Dreher M. Effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on newborn crying. Child Development 60(23/24):764–771, 1989.

30 Fried PA. The Ottawa prenatal prospective study (OPPS): Methodological issues and findings. It’s easy to throw the baby out with the bath water. Life Sciences 56(23–24):2159–2168, 1995.

31 Fried PA, Smith AM. A literature review of the consequences of prenatal marihuana exposure: An emerging theme of a deficiency in aspects of executive function. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23(1):1–11, 2001.

32 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE. Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143(3):302–308, 1999.

33 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141(4):395–404, 1999.

34 Lyons MJ, Toomey R, Meyer JM, et al. How do genes influence marijuana use? The role of subjective effects. Addiction 92(4):409–417, 1997.

35 These data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 2003: Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions by Primary Substance of Abuse, According to Sex, Age Group, Race, and Ethnicity, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The latest data are available at 800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

36 Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L. Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(5):898–908, 2000.

37 Budney AJ, Higgins ST, Radonovich KJ, et al. Adding voucher-based incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes during treatment for marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(6):1051–1061, 2000.


Revised 4/06 This page has been accessed 7439926 times since 11/5/99.


[InfoFacts Index]



Recommended Reading

NIDA Research Report: Marijuana Abuse

Marijuana: Facts for Teens

Marijuana: Facts Parents Should Know

NIDA Notes: Articles on Marijuana Research


Other NIDA Web Sites

Marijuana-info.org

NIDA for Teens: Marijuana






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Help | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Wednesday, January 2, 2008.

[Mister Sinister]

Keyboard too?
:lol Nope. Just a soda, and a clean, non-soda drenched pair of jeans. Black.

[duncan228]

You got it Shagia.

[Mister Sinister]

Hooray! Pants!

[SouthernFried]

Marijuana is a drug...its purpose is to fuck you up. If you prefer being fucked up to not being fucked up, your not alone.

When I was a kid, being fucked up was fine. I'm an adult now, responsibilities lead to doing the best I can for me and my family...can't do it being fucked up.

I remember telling everyone when I was in college how I could do things as well, or better when I was fucked up.

I said, and did, a lotta stupid things in college.

Such is life.

Duncan doesn't look too fucked up to me.

...at least on the court :)

[~Sweetmelody~]

I'm not even sure how to respond.

Maybe you want to PM me. :lol

:lmao

Okay... and I thought I was going to upset you! :lol

[duncan228]

:lmao

Okay... and I thought I was going to upset you! :lol

Nope. Not in any way.

[TwoHandJam]

When you compare the physical and social effects on people that use marijuana vs. people who drink, I'll take the effects due to marijuana any day of the week. Alcohol is a far more dangerous and destructive drug imo based on what I've read (and experienced) and its effects on the body are well documented.

Let's not forget that alcohol was also once quite illegal but the massive black market for it literally forced its legalization - much like what I believe will eventually happen with pot. Also, aside from the terrible things alcohol abuse does to the user, I believe alcohol abusers exact far more damage on society than marijuana abusers. Alcohol induced violence is widespread. I've never met a pothead that became violent when they smoked.

In a nutshell, those who are against marijuana legalization but fully accept alcohol being legal are either hypocrites or sorely misinformed about the drug.

[SouthernFried]

Well...I will take a drunk over a crackhead, a ritalin user over a pothead, a meth user over an acidhead, coke over 'shrooms, tobacco over marijuana, aspirin over tylenol.

Drugs and driving...make your choice. It's obvious we need more legal drugs tho.

Me, Valero coffee and Ozarka bottled water.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Marijuana is a drug...its purpose is to fuck you up. If you prefer being fucked up to not being fucked up, your not alone.

)

lol, you don't get that messed up on marijuana.... come on now...

[TampaDude]

When you compare the physical and social effects on people that use marijuana vs. people who drink, I'll take the effects due to marijuana any day of the week. Alcohol is a far more dangerous and destructive drug imo based on what I've read (and experienced) and its effects on the body are well documented.

Let's not forget that alcohol was also once quite illegal but the massive black market for it literally forced its legalization - much like what I believe will eventually happen with pot. Also, aside from the terrible things alcohol abuse does to the user, I believe alcohol abusers exact far more damage on society than marijuana abusers. Alcohol induced violence is widespread. I've never met a pothead that became violent when they smoked.

In a nutshell, those who are against marijuana legalization but fully accept alcohol being legal are either hypocrites or sorely misinformed about the drug.

+1 :toast

[mbass]

When you compare the physical and social effects on people that use marijuana vs. people who drink, I'll take the effects due to marijuana any day of the week. Alcohol is a far more dangerous and destructive drug imo based on what I've read (and experienced) and its effects on the body are well documented.

Let's not forget that alcohol was also once quite illegal but the massive black market for it literally forced its legalization - much like what I believe will eventually happen with pot. Also, aside from the terrible things alcohol abuse does to the user, I believe alcohol abusers exact far more damage on society than marijuana abusers. Alcohol induced violence is widespread. I've never met a pothead that became violent when they smoked.

In a nutshell, those who are against marijuana legalization but fully accept alcohol being legal are either hypocrites or sorely misinformed about the drug.

Two separate questions - 1. is marijuana harmful?; 2. Should marijuana be legal?

[balli]

That is why the guy who started this thread probably works at a job that does not require a high level of education and yours does. This is just a hunch. Just like his of Timmy.

I wasn't assuming shit about Duncan with malicious intent. At all.

I'm not some gutter-picking stoner and your almost bigoted hunches are shitty. You blatantly assume all potheads are idiots.

I'm a college graduate almost done with my masters. I work as an architectual drafter doing complex math all day and using complex Cad programs, to create complex fucking drawings.

I'm not going to assume shit about you or your intellect, but man, you don't know shit about me, so why don't you do the same and keep your fuckin' mouth shut next time.

[balli]

I think marijuana poses a large threat when it comes to carcinogens. It worries me a lot. Really, a lot. In fact, I make no claim that smoking marijuan is physically healthy. At all. Otherwise, I think it is 100% safe. I know everything there is to know about weed, now you can too.

http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=16550

I bolded the part on driving down below


Introduction
All symptoms of cannabis intoxication have been known for centuries. The discovery of delta-9-THC as the major psychoactive agent in cannabis, as well as the availability of techniques to measure its concentration, has given to the clinical pharmacologist the opportunity to study dose-response relationships of this drug.

* This article is based on a book published by the author.

Another important area which the clinical pharmacologist has investigated is the metabolism and distribution of delta-9-THC, using tagged material. Analysis of these studies give a better understanding of the mode of action of the drug through the formation of active and inactive metabolites.

The first clinical study with synthetic material was made by Isbell et al. (1967) who showed that the physical and psychological effects of cannabis were related to the dose administered, and confirmed the older observations of Moreau (1845) about the hallucinogenic properties of cannabis. Isbell indeed concluded his study in a straight forward way: "The data in our experiments definitely indicate that the psychotomimetic effects of delta-9-THC are dependent on dosage and that sufficiently high dosage (8 mg smoked, 30 mg ingested) can cause psychotic reactions in any individual. "Isbell therefore classified cannabis among the hallucinogens.

Two subsequent studies, by Weil (1969) and by Crancer et al. (1969), however, made with unextracted, aged material, containing a putative dose of delta-9-THC (5 to 66 mg) only produced mild symptoms of intoxication which were not related to the amount of drug administered. The results of these studies indicated that cannabis was a "mild intoxicant" which produced effects not related to dosage, did not impair, and even improved performance of "chronic users". Following this work, a new pharmacological concept was introduced, that of "reverse tolerance".

From then on the great marihuana debate had started in the United States: Is cannabis an hallucinogen? Or is it a mild intoxicant when used in a dosage likely to be taken by habitual users in the population at large?

The difficulties of interpreting clinical studies with delta-9-THC are due to the many factors which influence the development of cannabis intoxication in man (table I). These factors are the dosage of active material (mostly delta-9-THC) in the preparation used, the route of intake (whether by inhalation or ingestion), the previous experience of the subject with the drug, the frequency of intake, and the development of tolerance to the drug; individual genetic characteristics pertaining to enzyme induction by delta-9-THC and the formation of active metabolites are also very important; intake of other drugs which stimulate or inhibit enzyme induction will modify delta-9-THC metabolism and its pharmacological activity; the mood and expectation of the subject, as well as the setting in which the drug is taken, will influence the psychological response. It is apparent that all of these variables cannot be controlled even in the best clinical experiments.

TABLE I

Factors influencing cannabis intoxication

Dose (amount of delta-9-THC)

Route of intake:

Inhalation

Ingestion

Frequency of intake (development of tolerance)

Individual metabolism of delta-9-THC and formation of active metabolites

Associated intake of drugs interacting with delta-9-THC: alcohol, psychotropic drugs (barbiturates, amphetamines)

Mood of the subject (Expectation)

Setting:

Group (Interpersonal stimulation)

Solitary

When trying to determine the dosage administered to a subject the clinical pharmacologist is faced with a difficult task: He has presently no way to measure the amount of active ingredients actually absorbed in the blood because none of the available methods are sensitive enough. As all preparations are either ingested or smoked, the amounts absorbed by both routes will vary considerably from one subject to the next. And no clinical pharmacologist has yet felt free to administer delta-9-THC intravenously to man, except in tracer amounts, because of its insolubility in water. But available techniques should allow investigators to measure accurately the amount of active ingredients present in the preparation which they use. With this measurement, imperfect as it is, dose-response relationship may be established and the range of dosage required to produce euphoria, dysphoria and hallucinations established. This range has now been bracketed in a number of studies which will be reviewed: it is close to that determined by Isbell.

Besides actual dosage delivered, the second factor to be considered is the personality of the subject and his previous knowledge or experience with the drug.

Previous cannabis usage by a person will modify the subjective effects produced by the drug either in laboratory or social setting. But many investigators do not or cannot define what they mean by "use ", "habitual use ", "chronic use ", or "experienced use" of the drug. Other investigators define the dosage of cannabis used in an experiment as one which will produce a "typical ", socially acceptable "high ", or a commonly experienced high, or a socially relevant dose. Such definitions are not quantitative enough to be scientifically acceptable. Many authors also speak of high, very high, moderate and low dosages without specifying the actual amount administered.

In Isbell's studies former narcotic addicts or prisonners were used as experimental subjects. They had a thorough previous knowledge of the subjective and intoxicating effects of drugs. Interpretation of the results observed in these subjects was criticized and it was pointed out that such data might not apply to a more representative sample of the population at large. Similar criticisms should also be applied to other studies performed on young paid volunteers recruited from the student community, many of them enthusiastic marihuana smokers who are convinced that cannabis is innocuous and are expecting pleasant effects from its use.

Jones (1971) performed uniques studies on a selected group of marihuana users who smoke relatively mild preparations (0.9 % THC). He was able to, distinguish the effects of the psycho-social factors associated with marihuana smoking from the pharmacologic effects of the drug, or the "effects of the mind on marihuana ".

The problem of tolerance to a drug which might be used habitually is of major importance. Can cannabis, which rapidly creates tolerance in animals, be used frequently by man without having to increase dosage in order to produce the desired effect? Is chronic use of cannabis associated with "reverse tolerance" and if so, by what mechanism? What about physical and psychological dependence? Investigators in clinical pharmacology have to attempt to answer all of these questions, which will sometime require critical comparison of present measurements with past observations.

Metabolism and disposition
Most significant studies were performed with tagged delta-9-THC administered intravenously (Lemberger 1970, 1971). Results obtained confirmed those in animals: delta-9-THC gives rise to nonpolar metabolites which are slowly eliminated from the body (fig. 1).

FIGURE 1


Comparison of the cumulative excretion of radioactivity in three chronic marihuana users and three non-users after intravenous injection of 14C-r 9-THC (Lemberger, 1971).

Disposition
After intravenous administration of tracer amounts of C 14-delta-9-THC to subjects who had never previously used cannabis extracts, the amount of this compound in plasma declines rapidly during the first hour, with a half-life of about 30 minutes. After one hour, the amount of delta-9-THC falls much more slowly (with a half-life of 56 hours). The decline of total radioactivity and of the more polar ether extractable metabolites in plasma is similar to that of delta-9-THC. A rapid initial decline precedes a much slower phase of disappearance from the plasma. Polar metabolites are formed rapidly and are present in plasma at higher concentrations than delta-9-THC. The initially rapid decrease of C 14-delta-9-THC in plasma represents redistribution of delta-9-THC. from the intravascular compartment into tissues (including brain) and metabolism. These findings are consistent with the reported clinical effects of a small dose of inhaled marihuana (containing approximately 5 mg or less of delta-9-THC) which are maximum within 15 minutes, diminished between 30 minutes and one hour, and largely dissipated by three hours. The slower decline of delta-9-THC in plasma ( t1/2 56 hours) and of total radioactivity ( t1/2 67 hours) presumably represents retention and slow release of the drug from the tissues. Since delta-9-THC is a nonpolar compound, it may accumulate in fat or other tissues such as lung which have an affinity for the drug, and it has already been reported that after intravenous administration of delta-9-THC to animals, much higher levels of radioactivity were present in the lung than in other tissues.

Over a period of more than a week about 30% of the administered radioactivity is excreted in the urine and 50% in the faeces. The finding that delta-9-THC and its metabolites persist in man for long periods indicates that the drug and its metabolites will accumulate in tissues when administered repeatedly. In chronic users, the half life of delta-9-THC in blood plasma is 28 hours (instead of 57 hours for non-users). Apparent volume of distribution is similar in both groups. Chronic users will eliminate significantly more polar metabolites in the urine and less in the faeces than non-users. The total amount of metabolites eliminated in both groups is the same and requires more than one week. The more rapid urinary elimination of delta-9-THC metabolites in chronic users gives a biochemical basis to the development of tolerance, which accompanies cannabis usage.

Tissue storage of cannabis derivatives
One of the deceptive aspects of cannabis derivatives is that long after their psychoactive effect has been dissipated, their polar metabolites are stored in body tissues for as long as a week.

Repeated administration of cannabis preparations at less than a week’s interval will result in the accumulation of metabolites in tissues, including brain. Long-term effects of a chronic accumulation of non-polar metabolites will have to be appraised with special attention to memory, affectivity and performance of complex tasks. Possible relationship between this accumulation and the development of the "amotivational syndrome" should be investigated.

The possible adverse effects resulting from tissue storage of the metabolites of cannabis derivatives are now well recognized. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration (1971) has formulated the following regulations regarding the use of cannabis for clinical investigation in man:

Oral doses of the extract, delta-8- or delta-9-THC may be given daily for a period not to exceed one week. Parenteral doses or prolonged oral doses may not be administered to human subjects.

Inhalation studies involving the smoking of the standard extract of marihuana, delta-8 or delta-9-THC may be performed for short periods, i.e., 3 days, and repeated after a washout period of 3 days.

Studies utilizing the smoking of whole plant material may be performed for a period up to one month.

If such regulations will permit to rapidly assess the acute effect of known amounts of the active ingredient of cannabis, they preclude the performance of chronic studies in the foreseeable future.

Active metabolites.
While nonpsychoactive polar metabolites remain in tissues, and are slowly excreted in urine and faeces, there is evidence that psychoactive metabolites of delta-9 and delta-8-THC might also be formed (Truitt 1970, 1971; Nakazawa and Costa, 1971). They are the 11 hydroxy THC compounds.

The production of psychoactive metabolites of delta-9-THC by enzyme induction in liver and lung could account for the elayed appearance in many subjects of their first recorded manifestations of cz\1annabis intoxication. Few effects are reported when the drug is taken or smoked for the first time. They only appear after a subsequent intake, and the same dosage as taken the first time is accompanied by greater effects the second or third time. However, this so-called "reverse tolerance" is of brief duration with continued intake of cannabis. Metabolic tolerance will continue to develop until enzyme induction has reached its maximum levels; in addition functional brain tissue tolerance to the active metabolites of delta-9-THC will also develop. The resulting effects of these two processes will be that increases in drug intake will be required to obtain the same effects.

FIGURE 2

Plasma levels of 14C-r 9-THC, total radioactivity and ether-extractable radioactivity after the oral administration of 0.3 mg/kg of r 9-THC with 0.5 mg of 14C-r 9-THC to a chronic cannabis user. Blood samples were drawn at various times and plasma assayed for r 9-THC, total radioactivity and ether extractable radioactivity (Lemberger, 1971).

On the upper portion, the time course for the psychic effects of r 9-THC after its oral administration (0.3 mg/kg) is described (From Hollister et al., Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 9:783, 1968).

The possible participation of active metabolites of delta-9-THC in the development of the psychic effects of cannabis intoxication is supported by observations of Lemberger et al. (1971). They administered orally to a chronic user, tracer doses of C 14 tagged delta-9-THC along with a pharmacological carrier dose (0.3 mg/kg). Very little delta-9-THC were present in the plasma throughout the ten-hour observation period, while large amounts of polar metabolites including 11 hydroxy THC compounds were found. Their plasma concentration correlated well with the time course of psychic effects of orally administered delta-9-THC as reported by Hollister (1968) (fig. 2).

The exact contribution of all of these metabolites to the multiple psychological and behavioural effects and after-effects of cannabis intoxication will be very difficult to assess. Nonspecific enzymes (oxidases) in the microsomal fraction of the cell are induced rapidly, in vivo and in vitro, to form these metabolites (Truitt, 1970). It is known that these same liver enzymes can be induced to higher rates of activity (initial methylation or hydroxylation steps) by repeated usage of many other drugs which include barbiturates, antidepressants, tranquillizers, analgesics, and anticoagulants. Chronic administration of the drugs produces a metabolic tolerance due to an induction of an increased activity of the enzymes. All of the drugs will interact with delta-9-THC and might alter its bio-transformation and activity (fig. 3).

FIGURE 3

Schematic representation of the multiple effects of cannabis smoking on basic enzymatic and physiological mechanisms. These effects are mediated by r 9-THC and possibly by active metabolites, and lead to the development of functional and metabolic tolerance.

Physical effects of cannabis intoxication
Moreau described the various dosage-related physical symptoms of cannabis intoxication and concluded that the physical disorders, which develop later than the mental disturbances, relate to the nervous system. These observations were confirmed one hundred years later when investigators were able to measure the physical changes produced by cannabis intoxication.

Such changes were studied systematically by experts appointed by Mayor La Guardia of New York City. Present day clinical recordings consistently report increased heart rate and dilation of conjunctival blood vessels; these changes are not accompanied by any specific biochemical alterations in body fluids identifiable by present techniques.

CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS
Cannabis derivatives acutely administered to Western smokers cause a significant increase in heart rate. The degree of tachycardia which is related to the dose of delta-9-THC absorbed reaches a maximum 30 minutes after smoking and persists for more

FIGURE 4

Dose response increase in heart rate following increasing doses of smoked marihuana (Renault, 1971). than 40 minutes. In one study 65 % of the increase in heart rate observed could be associated with the concentration of delta-9-THC in the cigarette (Johnson and Domino, 1971). Linear dose response curves were obtained on the heart rate of subjects smoking marihuana cigarettes containing 1 to 6.5 mg. of delta-9-THC. Standardized Smoke Administration was delivered by means of a spirometer (fig. 4). A reproducible dose effect was observed in individual subjects, while variance between subjects in their heart rate response to marihuana inhalation was great. No difference was found between experienced and inexperienced smokers. Marihuana smoking suppressed the normal sinus arrythmus as well as the bradycardia associated with the Valsalva manoeuvre. With the highest delta-9-THC concentration (6.5 mg.) maximum heart rates were in the range of 140 to 160/min. (Renault, 1971).

This increase in pulse parallels the intensity of the subjective effects. If the drug induces anxiety, a marked increase in heart rate occurs-while if it induces somnolence or sedation, a moderate rise is observed.

In the study by Johnson and Domino (1971) changes in electrocardiogram were minimal but premature ventricular contractions were observed in 2 of 15 subjects who smoked cigarettes containing 10 mg. or more of delta-9-THC. Allentuck (1941) also reported in a few instances "a temperature sinus tachycardia or sinus bradycardia". By contrast, Isbell and Hollister did not report any arrythmias occurring in the subjects they studied. In view of the high incidence of acute cardiac pathology in the United States, a systematic evaluation of the effects of cannabis intoxication on the heart is required.

Changes in blood pressure have also been reported following cannabis intoxication. Reports are conflicting. Isbell et al. (1967), who studied prisoners, experienced marihuana users, given orally, 10 to 30 mg. of delta-9-THC, reported no change or a decrease in blood pressure. So did Hollister (1971) who studied student volunteers given larger doses (30 to 70 mg. delta-9-THC). With the higher dose, two of the subjects developed orthostatic hypotension. By contrast, Johnson and Domino report a significant rise in systolic and diastolic blood pressures when doses greater than 10 mg. delta-9-THC were inhaled. Allentuck in the La Guardia Report also states that "the increase in pulse rate was usually accompanied by a rise in blood pressure", and Williams et al. (1946) in his study of 17 subjects smoking marihuana ad libitum observed a slightly increased blood pressure. The Significance of these conflicting reports is not clear.

Conjunctival blood vessel congestion is one of the most constant recognizable signs following marihuana smoking. This congestion is related to the dose of the drug; it lasts longer than the increase in heart rate and is still apparent 90 minutes after the end of smoking, but subsides in the following 24 hours. The mechanism of action is not known; it is not related to an irritation from smoke of the cigarette, but rather to a direct action of delta-9-THC on the conjunctival vessels. An active congestion of the transverse ciliary vessels has been observed in India, among chronic users of cannabis (ganja). It is accompanied by a yellow discoloration of the conjunctiva due to deposition of a yellow pigment around the vessels, and is reported to still be present years after the drug was withheld (Chopra, 1969).

NEURO-MUSCULAR CHANGES
Unlike LSD which produces a hypereffectivity, cannabis intoxication does not alter deep tendon patellar or Achilles reflexes. In contradiction of earlier reports, pupil diameter is not changed following cannabis intoxication. There is a muscle weakness which can be objectively measured by the ergograph test (Hollister, 1969). Ptosis of the eyelids is also observed (Domino, 1971), as well as an impairment of body and hand steadiness. The ataxia is in general in all directions rather than predominant in any particular axis; it can be ascribed to both the central and peripheral nervous system effects of cannabis, which acts on the cerebellum and on the neuro-muscular function.

OTHER NEURAL CHANGES
Nausea with vasomotor imbalance and vomiting is often reported by inexperienced subjects using cannabis extracts. Dryness of the mouth and naso-pharyngeal mucosa is usually reported by the cannabis smoker. This symptom might not be entirely due to the irritation of the smoking process and has been related to an atropine-like substance present in the smoke, which could cause a decrease in salivary flow (Gill et al. 1970).

Hepler and Frank (1971) reported that 9 of 11 subjects, after smoking 2 gm of marihuana containing 9% delta-9-THC in a water pipe, presented a significant decrease in intraocular pressure.

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC CHANGES
These changes observed in occasional users smoking cigarettes containing a putative dose of 7.5-22.5 mg. delta-9-THC are not very pronounced; they consist of an increase in per cent time of alpha band and an associated reduction in theta and beta bands. However, another chronic experiment performed by these same authors showed that marihuana smoked for 10 to 22 days by four previous heroin addicts produced dysphoria and EEG synchronization (Volavka, 1971).

EFFECTS ON SLEEP
Tart and Crawford (1970) report the effects of marihuana intoxication in sleep patterns in 150 experienced smokers. They report that moderate levels of marihuana intoxication have a sedative effect, but high level may overstimulate, ward off drowsiness and make sleep poorer.

ALTERATION OF GLUCOSE METABOLISM, ENDOCRINE STUDIES
Many subjects after cannabis usage have reported an increased appetite especially for sweets. This subjective symptom is not related to changes in blood sugar levels which remain constant at times when the cardiovascular and psychological effects of the drug are maximal. However, an abnormal glucose tolerance test has been reported in "chronic" marihuana smokers.

In studies where a single dose of 15-70 mg. of delta-9-THC was ingested there were no changes in plasma cortisol levels, platelet serotonin, blood chemistry and hemotology, or urinary catecholamines excretion. Creatinine and phosphorous clearance were temporarily decreased, a phenomenon which has been observed with LSD (Hollister 1968).

Clinical studies with smoked cannabis extracts or synthetic delta-9-THC
THE TECHNIQUE OF SMOKING THE MARIHUANA CIGARETTE
Smoking is a common method of including cannabis intoxication, and it is the method chosen by most marihuana users because a swift effect can be obtained with a small amount of the substance.

THE ABSORPTION OF THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT FROM THE SMOKE
The amount of active material absorbed in the blood stream will be, in part, a function of the method of smoking. Therefore, the experience of the smoker, and his motivation to obtain the desired effect will influence the amount of inhaled smoke which will be stored in the lungs. The amount of inhaled smoke may vary considerably: from 15 to 100 ml per inhalation. In order to control this variable, it is important to measure tidal volume as well as amount of smoke inhaled and breath-holding time. Even so, different subjects will not have the same efficiency in delivering the active ingredients contained in their cigarette to their pulmonary vessels. It is therefore difficult to gauge quantitatively the physiological and psychological effects of the same amount of cannabis smoked by different subjects.

The relationship between the active constituents of the cannabis cigarette and the chemical by-products which may be produced in the burning process of smoking (pyrolysis) is not elucidated. The experiments performed by Manno et al. (1970) and by Truitt (1971), indicate that after insuring complete smoking of the cigarette end approximately 50% of the delta-9-THC originally present in the cigarette is delivered unchanged in the smoke (fig. 5). Assuming that mainstream smoke (which is inhaled) accounts for 90 % of the smoke produced by the burning cigarette, the maximum efficiency of delivery of delta-9-THC by an experienced smoker would be 45%, providing the entire cigarette is burned.

DISTRIBUTION OF Δ 9-THC IN MARIHUANA SMOKE
Distribution of Δ 9 -THC in smoke of a marihuana cigarette consumed under standard conditions in the Batelle Laboratory, on a smoking machine (Truitt, 1971).

If the cigarette is not entirely consumed, as much as 50% of THC may accumulate in the unburned end or "roach". In this case, the efficiency of transfer of delta-9-THC will be further decreased to 22%. Since half of the delta-9-THC may remain in the butt of a cannabis cigarette, it is important in clinical experiments that all smokers consume their cigarettes to the same length. Otherwise the remaining butts should be weighed and the delta-9-THC measured and substracted from the original amount present in the cigarette.

Some investigators have compared, in double-blind experiments, the effects of smoking cannabis extracts of different potency in experienced and novice subjects with the effects produced by a placebo. Chronic cannabis smokers claim they are able to identify the cigarette containing psychoactive ingredients. It has been proved that this is not the case, especially when the cigarettes contain small doses of toxic material (1% delta-9-THC or less) (Jones, 1971). The characteristic smell of burning cannabis is not related to its active cannabinoids, and cannot be an index of potency.

It is generally agreed that delta-9-THC is three to four times more potent when smoked than when taken orally. Smoking produces, within a few minutes, effects which will last from 1 to 4 hours. Oral dosage will only be felt after 1 hour and last for 6 to 8 hours. The reasons for the greater potency of cannabis when smoked as compared to a preparation orally administered are not clear.

That delta-9 THC may possibly induce active metabolites in the lung might be a reason for the greater activity of smoked marihuana. The by-products of ingested cannabis first go through the liver where some may be inactivated. The exact mechanisms of action of ingested and smoked cannabis will only be clarified after completion of tracer studies.

The amount of active ingredients transferred through smoking cannabis will therefore depend upon many factors which include the method of smoking, the expertise of the smoker, the amount of mainstream smoke which can be trapped in the lung, the amount of side stream smoke, and the amount of psychoactive substance trapped in the unburned cigarette end. It is very difficult to keep all of these factors uniform from one subject to the next. A significant number of clinical studies did not control these important variables. Consequently the reported results are misleading (table II).

THE STUDY OF WEIL et al. (1968), ON THE CLINICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MARIHUANA SMOKING
The first laboratory study made by Well and associates on smokers using marihuana cigarettes containing putative dosage of 4.5 to 18 mg. delta-9-THC, does illustrate the uncertainties inherent in clinical investigations performed with cannabis of uncertain potency. In this study non-users experienced few subjective effects, demonstrated impaired performance on simple intellectual and psychomotor tests, moderate acceleration of heart rate (not dose related) and injection of the conjunctivae. "Experienced users" presented increases in heart rate higher than those observed in non-users and not dose related, reported a subjective" high" and a" slight improvement of their performance" (pursuit rotor test and digit-symbol substitution test). On the basis of these observations Well et al. concluded that "marihuana is a relatively mild intoxicant ", a view which can only be shared by all those who read their report. And readers were many since Well's paper was published in Science (1968), extensively quoted in Grinspoon's article on Marihuana published in Scientific American (1969) and the subject of a feature article on the front page of the New York Times. This paper certainly did contribute to the widely held belief in the United States that marihuana is a mild intoxicant with little untoward effects.

However, it is now apparent that the dose of psychoactive material absorbed in this study must have been quite low. All of the subsequent studies in which delta-9-THC was actually measured, indicate that dosages similar to those used by Weil produced much more significant impairment in psychomotor performance and much more important dose related increases in heart rate. On the basis of the experience of another investigator who used unextracted natural material of a similar age, the reported dose of delta-9-THC utilized by Weil might have been seven times lower than actually assumed. However, in the discussions of his results, Weil et al. do not mention at any time that the dosage used might have been lower than assumed in spite of the fact that they did not observe a dose response increase in heart rate. It is clear from Weil’s study that a scientist should not interpret as a reliable index of cannabis intoxication the subjective feeling of a person who claims he is experiencing a "normal social marihuana high".

TABLE II
Comparative changes in heart rate observed after smoking marihuana cigarettes containing different dosages of Δ-9-THC. The result of the first two studies are at variance with the subsequent ones where the actual dosage of Δ-9-THC was ascertained. Note the dose-response relationship in the later studies
Heart rate
Psychomotor performance
Authors Subjects Dose Δ-9-THC (MG.) in cigarettes Average increase(beat/min) Time Duration Dose dependence Change Dose dependence
Weil et al. "Naïve" 4.5 (alleged) 16 15’ >90’ No impaired[a] Yes
(1968) 18.0 " 16 15’ <90’ impaired[a]
"Chronic" 4.5 " 32 15’ >90’ No unchanged [a] No
18.0 " - - - unchanged [a]
Crancer "Naïve" 22.0 (alleged) ? ? ? ? not changed -
(1969) "Chronic" 22.0 " ? ? ? No not changed [b] No
66.0 " ? ? ? not changed [b]
Isbell "Experienced" 5.0 40 60’ >4 hrs. Yes impaired[c] Yes
(1969) 15.0 65 60’ >4 hrs. impaired[c]
Manno et al. "Experienced + Naive" 5.0 16 20’ >60’ Yes impaired[d] Yes
(1970) 10.0 36 20’ >60’ impaired[d]
Johnson and "Experienced" 1.5- 5.0 10-20 5’ >90’ Yes not changed [e] -
Domino 10.0-30.0 40-60 20’ >120’ not performed
(1971)
Dornbush et al "Experienced" 7.5 3-5 immediate 20’ Yes not changed [f] Yes
(1971) 22.5 18-26 immediate 60’ impaired[f]
Renault et al "Inexperienced +
(1971) Experienced" 1.87 7* 10-20’ >60’
3.75 15* 10-20 >60’ Yes not performed -
6.50 22* 10-20’ >60’
Jones "Frequent" 9.0 17.3 30’ - - not impaired [g] -
(1971) "Unfrequent" 9.0 32.0 30’ - - impaired[g] -

Assumimg resting heart rate of 70/min.

a. Pursuit rotor performance.

b. Driving simulation.

c. Questionnaire.

d. Pursuit meter.

e. Auditory and visual threshold.

f. Reaction time, short-term memory

g. Digit Symbol substition, complex reaction time

[b]THE CRANCER STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF MARIHUANA ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE
A similar criticism can be made of the simulated driving study of Crancer, et al. (1969), also published in Science and partially quoted in Scientific American. Driving skills of subjects were tested with a driving simulator after they had consumed enough alcohol to approximate concentrations of 100 mg/100 ml plasma or smoked two marihuana cigarettes containing putative doses of 22 mg delta-9-THC. Such a dose, in the careful studies of Isbell reported in 1967 two years earlier produced, when "smoked", hallucinations, depersonalization and derealization. Furthermore, all of the subjects in the study by Crancer were favorably disposed towards marihuana and some might have been tolerant to its effects while having a bias against alcohol. Under conditions of "marihuana intoxication", speedometer errors were increased (the subjects did not carefully watch the speedometer) but otherwise, driving was not impaired. By contrast, profound impairment was observed with the large doses of alcohol administered (equivalent to 1.5 to 2 ml of 95 % ethanol per kg). Crancer and associates also tested four inexperienced users who showed either no change or negligible improvement in their scores. They gave to four "habitual users" three times the dose used in their first experiment (66 mg delta-9-THC) and these subjects did not show any significant driving impairment. Crancer concluded "that impairment in simulated driving performance is not a function of increased marihuana dosage or inexperience with the drug". :smokin

He does not discuss the discrepancy between his study and that of Isbell. However, he is careful not to state that the use of marihuana will not impair actual driving on the road or that it’s use is safer than alcohol. But some of the readers of his paper were less cautious. (Grinspoon, 1969; Kaplan, 1971; Schofield, 1971.)

The 1971 N.I.M.H. Report to Congress on Marihuana and Health also reports uncritically the Crancer study and concludes "the legal level of alcohol intoxication (used in the study) is probably higher than typical levels of social use of alcohol. By contrast, the use of marihuana used in this research may have more closely approximated a typical level of social marihuana use". If the authors of the N.I.M.H. report are correct, marihuana used socially in the United States is more closely related to lawn grass than to the drug-type of cannabis sativa which has been used throughout the centuries for its intoxicating properties.

Such observations contrasted with those of Isbell’s, who reported that smoking cigarettes containing 16 mg delta-9-THC was accompanied by hallucinations and in one instance, by psychotic episodes. No such symptoms were reported by Weil who used a putative dose of 18 mg or by Crancer, who used an alleged dosage of 22 to 66 mg delta-9-THC. It would appear that somebody must be wrong.

THE DOSE RELATED STUDIES OF ISBELL AND FORNEY
Isbell used delta-9-THC which had been prepared and assayed by Korte from the Institute of Organic Chemistry of Bonn University in Germany. Forty healthy former opiate addicts serving prison sentences and abstinent from all drugs were studied. In addition to physical changes, (such as rectal temperature, pulse rate, blood pressure, pupillary diameter), subjective effects were evaluated by means of a questionnaire which permits assessment of personality and mood alterations typically considered as important determinants of drug effects. Thirty questions were selected from the "general drug", "marihuana" and LSD scales of the Addiction Research Inventory, while the remaining 33 questions dealt with alterations in body image, illusions, delusions, hallucinations and were designated as the psychotomimetic scale. A dose of 0.05 mg/kg delta-9-THC smoked or 0.12 mg/kg ingested produced euphoria as well as time sense and perceptual changes. A dose of 0.2 to 0.25 mg/kg smoked or 0.3 to 0.48 mg/kg ingested was accompanied by marked distortion in visual and auditory perception, derealization, depersonalization and hallucinations. Isbell also established that for each subject physical changes (increase in pulse rate) and psychological changes were dose dependent. In a subsequent study he compared delta-9-THC (15 to 225 mcg/kg smoked) and LSD (0.5 to 1.5 mcg intramuscular) in the same eight subjects. While the objective effects of both drugs were markedly different, the subjective effects could not be readily distinguished by using the special drug scales developed at the Addiction Research Center. Two patients out of 10 withdrew after experiencing psychotic reactions following THC. Both drugs were psychotomimetics-LSD was 160 times as potent as THC on the psychomimetic scale and 150 times as potent as THC on the general drug scale. But patients tolerant to LSD were not cross tolerant to THC, indicating that the mental effects of the two drugs are mediated by different mechanisms.

The pioneering observations of Isbell on the adverse effects of delta-9-THC (10 mg smoked) on mental performance were substantiated by subsequent well-controlled studies performed by Forney's group. They compared the effect of placebo cigarettes with those containing marihuana extracts containing 10 mg delta-9-THC, THC being assayed by the investigators themselves with the use of gas chromatography. These authors had demonstrated in previous studies that a cigarette containing 10 mg delta-9-THC, smoked with maximum efficiency will deliver to the subject five mg. Cannabis impaired performance significantly on a pursuit meter as well as 5 of 9 performance tests done under conditions of delayed auditory feedback. Many more subjective symptoms were reported by those who smoked cannabis than those who smoked the placebo cigarettes and all were able to identify the active cigarettes without error. However, half of the group also reported that the placebo cigarettes were active, which confirms the studies of Jones and the unreliability of subjective identification of cannabis intoxication induced by smoking, because of the associated sensory perceptions which favour psychological conditioning. It is of interest to note that it was not possible to detect any cannabinols in the blood or urine of the subjects who smoked the cannabis.

A subsequent study made by the same group did cast still more uncertainty on the validity of the results reported by Weil et al. (1968) and Crancer et al. (1969). Twelve volunteers smoked placebo or marihuana cigarettes calibrated to deliver 2.5 or 5 mg delta-9-THC which amounts to the same or to half the putative doses used by Weil, and one-quarter to one-sixth of the putative dose used by Crancer. In the course of the experiments the subjects were also given fruit juice or ethanol so as to produce concentration of 50 mg per 100 ml of plasma. All subjects who smoked cannabis presented a significant decrease in motor and mental performance which was equal to or greater than the dose produced by the alcohol. Alcohol produced an additive effect on performance impairment.

Hollister, a clinical pharmacologist specialized in the study of marihuana, commenting on the Crancer study, has this to say. "We simply asked our subjects when they were high (on marihuana) ‘ Do you think you could drive a car? ’ Without exception the answer from those who really were high was ‘ no ’ or ‘ you must be kidding ’.

In another study ten experienced marihuana smokers who smoked 2 to 3 cigarettes each containing an alleged dosage of 3.9 mg of delta-9-THC had only minimal effects (jocularity, loosening of associations). When the material smoked was reanalysed, a tenfold decrease of its original potency was recorded.

A careful analysis of the studies performed on marihuana smokers illustrates the uncertainties inherent in smoking of the unextracted cannabis weed available in the United States. A great deal of this weed contains little delta-9-THC or rapidly loses its potency if not properly stored. The deceptive aspect of many of the studies (table II) conducted with smoked marihuana is now quite apparent because the following factors were not ascertained: (1) the amount of active ingredients in the cigarette; (2) the fraction of the psychoactive material absorbed by the subject; (3) the extent of the placebo effect or psychological conditioning produced in " habitual smokers " by the smoking process. Only double-blind studies performed with carefully titrated extracted material undistinguishable from a placebo gave an opportunity to distinguish drug effect from psychological and emotional learned response. Such studies were performed by Jones, 1971.

THE EXPERIMENTS OF JONES (1971) ON CASUAL AND HABITUAL MARIHUANA SMOKERS
Jones has attempted to distinguish the effects of the psychological and emotional conditioning associated with marihuana smoking from the pharmacologic effects of the drug. His studies were performed over several years on a large sample of young marihuana smokers from the San Francisco area.

One hundred paid student volunteers from the University of California who had smoked marihuana intermittently or daily for 3 years were given a 1 gram marihuana cigarette containing 0.9 % delta-9-THC, or a placebo. The amount absorbed by each individual smoker could not be assessed, and was probably quite different from one to the other, but could not have been greater than 4 to 5 mg (50% of the amount present in the cigarette). The subjects were asked to rate the subjective estimation of their intoxication on a scale from 0 to 100. The mean rating of the group was 61 for marihuana and 34 for the placebo-but there was considerable overlap in individual ratings. Placebo was rated 0 to 90, cannabis from 0 to 95. Many subjects estimate that placebo and marihuana cigarettes were equal in potency. This was especially true for the frequent users of cannabis (more than one daily cigarette) who had developed a tolerance to the drug and rated placebo 52 and marihuana 48. For these " experienced, sophisticated users of cannabis ", the olfactory, oral and upper airway, sensory perceptions associated with smoking were sufficient to recapture the euphoric sensations they had felt in previous intoxications.

By contrast, infrequent smokers (less than 2 cigarettes a month), rated the marihuana significantly higher than the placebo. This well documented observation is at variance with the new cannabis folklore entertained by the " marihuana smokers " (Goode 1970), who claim that the experienced smoker is able to judge the intoxicating quality of the grass. " The greater the amount of experience with the drug, " says Goode, " the less likely it is that the subject has experienced either no reaction or nothing but a placebo reaction. In fact, the likelihood that a given person who has smoked marihuana more than a dozen times thinks that he has been high without actually experiencing what a truly experienced user would call a high, is practically nil. " This possibility is far from nil, as shown by the studies of Jones. The frequent users rated on the average the effects of placebo and marihuana cigarettes alike. As Jones says, " There may be a credibility gap in the marihuana culture. " The marihuana smoker makes the same misjudgement of psychotropic drug effects frequently made by consumers and professionals alike (Lennard et al. 1971).

The importance of psychological conditioning of frequent marihuana smokers was further illustrated by the fact that they gave a low rating to delta-9-THC (25 mg) orally administered. When these frequent users of cannabis did not experience the familiar oral and nasal sensory perceptions associated with smoking, they were unable to re-capture a euphoric state of mind, and their physical or pharmacological tolerance to cannabis became apparent. Many of these students had developed physical tolerance to cannabis without knowing it which is a good exercise in self-deception. Instead of increased sensitivity to cannabis, the data of Jones suggest tolerance to the physiologic and psychological effects of marihuana in the frequent users. Pulse rate increase was significantly smaller, decrease in salivary flow was less marked in the frequent users than in infrequent users. Psychomotor performance as measured by complex reaction time and digit symbol substitution was significantly impaired solely in occasional smokers. Jones also demonstrated that marihuana smokers experienced greater euphoria and less dysphoria when they smoked in groups than when they smoked alone. Jones concludes, " These data suggest that marihuana, when smoked at ‘ socially relevant doses ’ produces a level of intoxication that allows the attitude of the subject, his set and expectations, the setting and his past experience to interact in a complex way to determine how the subjective state will be labelled and reported. Many people have uncritically accepted the belief that the drug has specific effects on behaviour and experience, and that these can be readily identified. Although at high doses such a model may be valid, at the doses most youthful drug users are discussing, there is ample evidence that the effects of psychoactive drugs on behaviour and experience are often independent of the drugs’ pharmacologic effects. "

The pattern of response of the smokers studied by Jones is consistent with the model where the smoker may obtain intermittent response from delta-9-THC, but where much of the behaviour and subsequent response is maintained by conditioned reinforcement, " such as the ritual of ‘ lighting up ’ in group, and the associated stimuli of smell, taste and visual perception. "

Jones criticizes the investigators who depend upon a subjective response to gauge cannabis intoxication. " They do so at the risk of studying behaviour in a non-specific psychological state rather than the pharmacological action of marihuana." Many physicians will agree on this point.

But Jones claims that the researcher must also attempt to " quantify the effect of interpersonal stimulation and the effects of subject expectation on the pharmacological action of cannabis ". By doing so, the researcher will be able to relate in "a meaningful way" the pharmacologic effect of cannabis to a given subjective state. Such complex investigations are of great interest from a scientific viewpoint, and will require formidable academic talent and financial outlay. But one fails to see how such studies will answer the basic question asked to the physician: Does cannabis represent a hazard to the health of man and especially of growing man?

The criterion used by Jones to define marihuana dosage is somewhat fragile, when he speaks of a " socially relevant dose ". How can such a dose be defined in terms of the present unstable student milieu ? Jones criticizes the investigators who interpret experimental data on the basis of subjective response of the cannabis smoker, but he accepts the criterion of the "socially relevant dose" which is a still more uncertain yardstick.

THE SMOKING OF MARIHUANA, " MILD INTOXICANT " OR HALLUCINOGEN ?.
Weil's studies which were so widely heralded by the lay and scientific press to indicate that cannabis was a mild intoxicant, were done with plant material which seemed to contain a subthreshold dosage of intoxicating substance. The dose of delta-9-THC in the cannabis used in the studies reporting minimal psychological effects was either assayed in the laboratory by ultraviolet absorption spectrophotometry or by the National Institute of Mental Health (N.I.M.H.). It is now established that it is not possible to separate quantitatively various cannabinoids present in cannabis by ultraviolet absorption spectrophotometry. Furthermore, discrepancies have been reported between assays performed first at the N.I.M.H. with gas chromotography and subsequently at private laboratories (samples of marihuana allegedly containing 1.3% delta-9-THC were found to have 0.2%). These discrepancies might be due to spontaneous inactivation in the crude material of delta-9-THC during transport or storage.

In the light of the above one wonders why many investigators still fail to recognize the methodological shortcomings of the early studies of Weil and Crancer (Snyder, 1971).

Clinical studies with oral doses of cannabis or of delta-9-THC (Hollister)
All of the recent studies performed on volunteers given oral doses of cannabis material assayed for delta-9-THC content, or known amounts of synthetic delta-9-THC yield more uniform results than the studies performed with smoked material. For one thing, the psychological conditioning which affects marihuana smokers is not operative.

The findings of the first study performed by Isbell on former narcotic addicts serving prison sentences have already been mentioned. They have been in the main largely confirmed by other groups who used in addition to synthetic THC crude marihuana extracts, carefully assayed for THC content. Hollister (1969) used a group of student volunteers who ingested doses of 30 to 70 mg THC which corresponds to about twice the dosage used by Isbell. Perceptual and psychic changes reported by the subjects indicated more pronounced euphoria than experienced by the prisoners studied by Isbell in a correction institution. Sleepiness was more consistently observed, with deep sleep following the higher dose. Time sense was altered, hearing was less discriminate, and visual distortion abundant. Depersonalization, difficulty in concentrating and thinking were predominant. Many of the symptoms produced were like those elicited by the psychotomimetic LSD, mescaline, psilocytin, but Hollister observed fewer of such effects than Isbell did. Hollister also studied the effect of synhexyl, a synthetic delta-8-THC homologue, which was extensively studied for possible clinical application. Similar effects were reported with this compound, but a three times greater dosage was required.

In a study performed by a group from the N.I.M.H. 20 mg of delta-9-THC (putative dosage) was administered to 32 prisoners, paid volunteers who were ignorant of the nature of the drug under study, and were studied in a neutral setting (Waskow 1970). These subjects presented very mild physiological changes, with increases in heart rate much smaller than those reported by Isbell for similar or even lower dosage which raises the question of the real potency of the drug administered. They felt nevertheless, "considerable somatic discomfort, dizziness, weirdness, dream-like state, visual changes, alteration in time, sense and cognitive impairment." The feeling of euphoria, though present in some subjects, was not predominant.

In the study of Hollister, repetitive psychometric tests of arithmetic ability or free hand drawing were impaired in different ways; indicating slowing performance against time and loss of finer judgement. Subjects studied by the N.I.M.H. groups showed that only accuracy of serial addition was impaired but that other simple cognitive measurements were not altered (ability to say the alphabet or count backward).

Studies were also performed on volunteers given placebos or oral doses of crude marihuana extracts, asayed for delta-9-THC content which ranged from 5 to 60 mg. In general the effects produced by these extracts were comparable to those produced by similar amounts of synthetic delta-9-THC. Ingestion of extracts containing the equivalent amounts of 20, 40, 60 mg delta-9-THC produced impairment of short-term memory; these impairments did not follow a smooth time function but were episodic, brief in duration and not always under volitional control; they were accompanied by intermittent lapses of memory. Furthermore, oral doses of marihuana extract containing 40 to 60 mg of delta-9-THC, significantly impaired the social co-ordination of cognitive operations during a task that required sequential adjustments in reaching a goal. This disintegration of sequential thought is related to impaired immediate memory, and is associated with disorganized speech and thinking. Disturbance of this type has been called " temporal disintegration ". Cannabis does, therefore, interfere with the cerebral mechanism which controls the selection of information deriving from immediate memory storage. The influence of chronic cannabis intoxication on that mechanism, which is so important in the learning process during the formative school years, is not known, but one cannot exclude the possibility that it could be significantly impaired. The temporal in co-ordination of recent memory with a task to achieve may account in part for the speech pattern of the marihuana user who is not able to co-ordinate recent memory with temporal immediate goals. The intoxicated subject forgets what he is about to say the moment that immediately follows the end of a sentence, and he has a strong tendency to discuss matters that have nothing to do with the preceding sentence because the logical sequence of his thought escapes him. He acknowledges that he needs to exert a considerable effort in order to recall from one moment to the other the logical thread of what he is in the process of expressing.

Clark and Nakashima (1968), also used oral marihuana extracts on volunteer subjects never exposed before to cannabis and studied their discriminatory and retentive faculties. They observed the disruptive effects of cannabis in sequential thought which suggest impairment of rapid decision-making and of short-term memory. They noted important variations in the same subject and from one subject to another, as far as the dose required to impair individual performance. These authors conclude: "These results are consistent with those reached when studying the influence of drugs such as LSD on such a complex state as behaviour which is influenced by a multitude of non-pharmacological factors. It is impossible to predict the effect of marihuana on different individuals or on the same individual at different times and in different circumstances. This impossibility to predict the effects of cannabis still increases the dangers of using that drug."

In a subsequent experiment with a dose of cannabis equivalent to 66 mg/kg of body weight delta-9-THC they observed significant impairment in complex reaction time, digit code memory, time estimation, hand steadiness and reading comprehension. The sporadic nature of the effect was noted with lapses in psychomotor response as attention waned.

These studies with ingested cannabis extract confirm the psychotomimetic properties of cannabis first described by Moreau. They indicate the greater danger of using this route of administration which requires larger dosage, is accompanied by much less psychological conditioning, and, therefore, a more rapid development of tolerance.

Relevance of laboratory experiments with cannabis and its actual usage
Some investigators question the relevance of experiments performed on volunteers in a laboratory setting with "large doses of strong, synthetic material" to the social use of marihuana smoked in an amount sufficient to produce a "normal, socially acceptable high."

Jones (1971) claims for instance: "To do socially relevant experiments with marihuana in the laboratory one must have some idea of what dose people are smoking in a ‘ typical, social situation’." His study contains exceedingly relevant social data which should outlast the "typical social situation" of the California student milieu of 1970, and endure in any social situation throughout the world: (1) That tolerance develops in daily marihuana users in spite of self denial; (2) That daily users "tend to have poorer work histories, school performance and social adjustments".

As shown by Hollister (1968) and Tart (1970), it is possible through the use of questionnaires to gather a basic group of symptoms which can be specifically tabulated for the different psychotropic drugs. It can now be reported that the clinical symptoms observed and described in laboratory studies of cannabis intoxication are quite similar to those described by those who use the drug socially. One such questionnaire shows that the most common symptoms reported are floating sensations, depersonalization, weakness, relaxation, perceptual changes in vision, hearing and touch, subjective slowing of time, loss of attention and immediate memory, difficulty of concentration, euphoria, sleepiness. Other answers indicate increased insight and enhanced sexual performance and enjoyment, claims which cannot be verified in the ordinary laboratory. Another questionnaire study of 42 randomly selected students who had used marihuana indicate the following results: 90% had experienced minor changes in perception (seeing colours or objects as more intense); about half had experienced major perceptual changes (hallucinating colours or designs); and 40% had experienced hallucinogenic reactions. These were as frequent among those who had not used mescaline or LSD, and it was not necessary to have used marihuana a great many times to present these reactions. It was concluded from these questionnaires that cannabis is an hallucinogen, a statement which concurs with that made by Moreau after he experienced the drug himself in 1840. All of these inquiries indicate that the respondents to the questionnaire corroborated experimental observations and had experienced with the same range of dosage used in the laboratory. Some of the dosages used were larger than required to produce a " normal, socially acceptable high" since hallucinogenic responses were frequently reported (Hollister 1971).

Interaction of cannabis with other drugs
It has been demonstrated in the experimental animal that delta-9-THC interacts with many commonly used psychotropic drugs: It acts synergistically with amphetamines and caffeine. It potentiates the depressant action of barbiturates and ethanol. In man, a similar potentiating effect between cannabis preparations and ethanol has been observed (Manno et al. 1971) and there is good reason to believe that interactions between cannabis preparations and barbiturates, caffeine and amphetamine are also present. This last interaction was already mentioned in the La Guardia Report. In addition to all of these drugs so commonly used in our society, one should mention the antihistamines, tranquillizers, phenothiazines, benzodiazepines, imipramines, butyrophenones. The resulting interactions of delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids with these drugs which may stimulate or inhibit the same enzyme systems, must be carefully appraised. Indeed it has already been established that regular consumers of cannabis do not abstain from smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol beverages. They are also prone to experiment and use other psychotropic drugs. The frequent daily smokers studied by Jones used more hallucinogen, alcohol and tobacco than occasional smokers. The marihuana smoker will also tend to be a heavy smoker of tobacco cigarettes. The mere act of smoking may enable him to recapture, through psychological conditioning associated with similar sensory perceptions, some of the pleasant effects of cannabis intoxication. It will be of interest to study the interaction of tobacco and cannabis on lung and heart function.

The usage of multiple drugs by daily chronic smokers of marihuana in the United States is so prevalent that it has led Mirin et al. (1971) to the following conclusions: "It is difficult to assess the effects of marihuana per se in many heavy users, since what is observed is a multiple drug abuse syndrome."

Tolerance
That tolerance to cannabis may develop in man, as it does in animals was first indicated by the following exerpt from the 1894 report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission: "Powerful and noxious drugs are occasionally introduced into the pipe; but this practice is confined to those excessive consumers on whom hemp alone has ceased to produce the desired effect of exhilaration or stupefaction." Evidence derived from observations made in India suggest that tolerance develops with chronic use of potent preparations. It would indeed appear doubtful that Indian smokers of ganja or charas could consume daily an estimated average of 70 mg of delta-9-THC, as reported by Chopra and Chopra (1939) without having developed some tolerance. A similar dose in a novice would produce acute psychotomimetic effects. This tolerance would explain why chronic users of cannabis may use large amounts of potent preparations without suffering any apparent severe somatic toxicity. These older reports have been corroborated by more recent ones. Morrow, who performed psychomotor tests on non-users and habitual users of cannabis in the La Guardia Report states "Non-users generally seem to be more affected by the drug when it is ingested than are users". Williams and co-workers (1946) reported in 1946 that the repeated administration to volunteers of synhexyl (a synthetic derivative of cannabis which could be given in known amounts or, ad libitum, smoking of marihuana cigarettes) resulted in decreasing effects within 4 to 6 days. The subjects requested an increase in dose. During the experimental period which lasted 39 days (table II), the number of cigarettes smoked daily by the subject increased and the users experienced "euphoria for several days ", then "general lassitude and indifference ". These observations are indicative that chronic marihuana smokers may well develop tolerance to the psychological as well as physiological effects of cannabis intoxication.

Wilson and Linken report from England in 1965 that a few adolescent cannabis users tend to use increasing doses. These chronic smokers, who find great difficulty in breaking the habit and do not particularly enjoy their dependent needs, appear to suffer from some degree of psychic dependence coupled with a requirement for fairly high doses of the drug.

Miras reports in 1969 that hashish smokers he has known in Greece for 20 years "are able to smoke at least 10 times as much as other people. If a beginner smoked the same quantity, he would collapse."

The rapid development of tolerance to cannabis preparations is noted in a report describing the respiratory complications of 31 young American soldiers stationed in Germany. They smoked monthly, for 6 to 15 months, 100 grams or more hashish, probably smuggled from North Africa or the Middle East. "Every patient described the development of this hashish tolerance as one which simply occurred by consuming increasing amounts over a few weeks period. This amount corresponds to three to four cigarettes a day containing one gram of hashish, which would represent 20 to 70 mg of delta-9-THC. Such a figure corresponds to the one given by Chopra for the dosage used by chronic smokers of ganja in India.

A candid report from Israel by Freedman and Peer (1968) is indicative of the development of tolerance to cannabis. Seven out of twenty-one pimps or prostitutes with little or no high school education, between 18-42 years of age, median age 28, studied in Israel admitted to having to increase the dose of hashish they were taking. "When your body gets used to it you want it stronger, the body needs more and more." "You start off with a small cigarette, then a big one, then a narguila" (water pipe). The remainder in this group (fourteen) claimed that they used the same amount of hashish. However, if one takes into account the age of the hashish user or the length of his habit, it can be observed that all of the members of the group (five) who had used hashish for more than 12 years also admitted using opium.

TABLE III
Physiologic and mental effects of marihuana smoking on six patients who smoked daily an average of 17 marihuana cigarettes (of unknown potency) for 39 days. These changes were quite comparable to those observed in six other subjects who ingested a daily dose of 60 to 2400 mg synhexyl, a synthetic derivative (from Williams et al. 1946)
Measure Interval Marihuana Synhexyl
Rectal temperature Daily Increased slightly Decreased slightly
Pulse rate Daily Increased for 3 weeks, then returned to normal Increased initially, then decreased below normal
Respiratory rate Daily No change Decreased
Systolic blood pressure Daily Slightly increased No change
Body weight Daily Increased Increased
Caloric intake Daily Initial increase, then progressive decline
Sleep Daily Increased Increase
Mood Daily Euphoria for several days, then general lassitude and indifference Euphoria for 3 days, then increased lethargy and general loss of interest
Co-ordination Daily No change No change
Confusion Daily Mild Mild
General intelligence tests Base line before medication; 14 days on medication, 3 days after dis-continuation Slightly impaired Slightly impaired
Role memory Base line before medication; 14 days on medication, 3 days after dis-continuation No change No change
EEG 14 days on medication Not consistent, tendency toward slowed alpha frequencies
Increased and decreased alpha percentages Decreased alpha frequencies and occasional delta in 2 of 6

All of this data is in agreement with the marked development of tolerance to cannabis derivatives in animals. It does not support the concept of "reverse" tolerance suggested by Weil et al. (1968) and entertained uncritically by other authors and which has become part of the new folklore on cannabis. This condition has been described by habitual smokers of marihuana, who claim that following initial exposure to the drug, they will need a lesser amount to become intoxicated, and will not feel constrained to increase the dose in order to obtain the desired effect. This so-called reverse tolerance can be accounted for by the enzymatic induction which occurs after initial exposure to the drug, and also by the positive reinforcement which accompanies the smoking process. This phenomenon is short lived, as functional tolerance which rapidly develops to the active metabolites of cannabis predominates over psychological conditioning.

How long will a frequent marihuana smoker be able to develop physical tolerance to cannabis and still experience the same euphoric response to the same dosage of the drug? The scientific evidence presented by Jones answers this question, and confirms the older observations reported in the literature - "frequent users (daily) develop a tolerance to the physical as well as the psychologic effects of cannabis. The frequent users used the drug longer (5.2 years), had greater experience with alcohol and hallucinogens, and smoked more tobacco. They tended to have poorer work histories, school performance and social adjustment, to miss scheduled test sessions and to miss appointments."

Jones adds the following comment: "If tolerance to behavioural and physiologic effects developed without tolerance to the desirable subjective effects, cannabis would perhaps be a useful drug. This would be a situation similar to that seen in tobacco smoking. Unfortunately, it appears that tolerance to the sought-after subjective effects also occurs with marihuana."

It is well known that a few strong-willed, motivated persons, endowed with powerful detoxifying enzyme systems, can control for many years the amount of drugs (including opiates and cocaine) they can take in order to obtain the desired effect. Such persons like the French artist and author Jean Cocteau, or the mysterious M. X, interviewed by Grinspoon, fall out of the normal range of any random population sample; rapid tolerance to psychoactive drugs is most likely to develop among the average human being especially if he is an adolescent with a labile personality and an uncertain future, or if he belongs to the underprivileged groups which today in our society are striving to achieve a better life. It is very doubtful that the use of cannabis would help them achieve this goal. It is now well established that pharmacological tolerance develops to delta-9-THC and cannabis. The tolerance to smoked cannabis can be controlled by casual users for some time, through psychological conditioning. However, all pharmacological and clinical evidence presently available indicates that frequent (daily) users of cannabis will develop tolerance to the physiologic as well as the psychologic effects of the drug. This tolerance to cannabis gives a physiological basis to the necessity for the frequent smoker to increase dosage, or to use more potent psychotropic drugs such as other hallucinogens or the opiates.

It is time to revise the popular belief that "there is little or no tendency to increase dosage of cannabis since there is little or no development of tolerance" (WHO Expert Committee, 1964). Such a belief is currently reinforced by all of the statements contained in the books on cannabis available in 1971 to the English reader (Kaplan 1971; Snyder 1971; Grinspoon 1971; Schofield 1971).

Physical and psychological dependence: the marihuana habit
A misconception seems to have penetrated into the mind of many psychologists and physicians who believe that " addiction ", meaning physical dependence accompanied by withdrawal symptoms, is the main criterion by which the potential harm of a drug to the individual or to society should be gauged. One must be very careful about drawing too sharp a line between physical and psychological dependence. There is no complete dichotomy between mind and body. Psychological function does also have physiological and biochemical bases. The desire for instant gratification is a profound psychological reinforcer. Physical dependence does not develop with central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine which is known to create in an individual one of the most enslaving types of drug dependence.

Addiction to a drug is not a function of the ability of the drug to produce withdrawal symptoms. Drug dependence results basically from the reproducible interaction between an individual and a pleasure-inducing biologically active molecule. The common denominator of all drug dependence is the psychological reinforcement resulting from reward associated with the past individual drug interaction and the subsequent increasing desire for repeated reinforcement (Seevers, 1970). On this basis it is deceptive to categorize marihuana as a "soft" acceptable drug.

The example of Freud, who recommended cocaine to his friend, von Fleishl, to help him withdraw from morphine addiction, should be kept in mind. With this new drug, von Fleishl was able to withdraw from morphine; but he used cocaine instead, and ever increasing doses until he was in a state of constant intoxication. As a result of this sad experience, Freud, even when he suffered from cancer, did not take pain killing medications, except aspirin (Lennard, 1971). As Jones (1953), his biographer, says, "Freud, like all good doctors, was averse to taking drugs." The example of cocaine clearly demonstrates that a strong psychological reinforcement is the only necessary requirement to perpetuate a most compelling form of drug addiction.

While cannabis users will develop tolerance to the drug, they do not present any significant physical dependence identifiable by specific withdrawal symptoms, similar to those occurring with heroin or ethanol. The symptoms observed following discontinuation of heavy use are relatively mild. Loss of appetite, insomnia, irritability are well-tolerated, but it is well documented that cannabis may create a state of psychological dependence which is an important obstacle to discontinue usage.

In India, "chronic hemp habituation" says Chopra (1969), "is a self-inflicted disease. It is progressive and seldom abates by itself. The urge to smoke may become so great that the individual inhales until he loses consciousness. Repeated use of the drug leads to a craving and psychological dependence."

Soueif (1967) reports that in Egypt 65 % of the consumers of hashish declared they were unable to stop although they expressed a wish to discontinue their habituation. According to Soueif, "Among hashish users there is a definite pattern of oscillation of temperamental traits, swinging between two opposite poles, that of social ease, a desire to mix, acquiescence and elation (euphoria) when under immediate drug effects and that of ascendancy, seclusiveness, negativism, depression of the mood and pugnacity (which may be considered as main components of a psychic withdrawal syndrome) when the subjects are deprived of the drug. This pattern of oscillation of the subject's personality, between the drugged state and the state of deprivation from the drug, may be considered", according to Soueif, "as the behavioural core of a state of psychic dependence. One of the most salient characteristics of this state is a need to continue taking the drug not only to attain the feeling of well being but also to avoid feeling low."

Statements reported are: "It finishes you off and makes you lazy too. You have to either give up the drug or your future. It can affect your health sometimes, because it's a drug. A person is always like a drunk - high - doesn't know what is happening with him and it interferes with his future. It louses up your family life, kids, doesn't let you get ahead and make a living." Many of the young habitual cannabis smokers in the western culture strongly deny any ill effect on performance or interpersonal relationships. The observations of Yardley (1968) who was a proctor in 1965 at Oxford University are indicative of the self-deception experienced by students who fall into the habit of using cannabis regularly. "Every one of those who were regular takers seemed to be convinced that cannabis was not habit forming; that they had not developed any real habit of taking it; and that they would give up the drug at any time at will; that it was a cleaner practice than the taking of alcohol; and that it should be legalized. But most of those who had become accustomed to taking this drug regularly had to call on professional help to give it up. Furthermore, it was plain that those who did take it regularly tended gradually to increase their consumption and a certain number of them, small but perhaps significant, graduated to hard drugs."

Man is a creature of habit, and Americans are not immune from the marihuana habit. This habit has been reported among American smokers between 20 and 30 years of age who have usually a history of four or five years of marihuana use (Scher, 1970). They describe a decreasing interest in the use of marihuana, but seem completely unwilling or unable to discontinue usage of the drug. They develop diminished pleasure from the drug, requiring more (a stronger amount or a different variety) to produce the "high" - all signs of the same increased tolerance which now becomes so apparent in frequent users.

The Israeli users of hashish studied by Freedman and Peer resemble closely, in this respect, their Egyptian neighbours. Half of those questioned, acknowledged candidly that they could not give up hashish. Some of the answers of these Israeli cannabis smokers are revealing: "Maybe somebody with a strong character can quit. Because all you do is to smell it and you're back smoking." Eleven out of 21 said: "You can kick the habit, and you don't need the hospital - it's only hard the first month." However, when the members of the group were asked, "Do you know of cases where people who quit went back to smoking again?" Twenty out of 21 answered they knew such people, because "you always go back to it - you can't stop." This statement contrasts with the preceding one because, "It is easier to be frank when talking about others than when talking about one's self".

Summary
Clinical studies with measured amounts of delta-9-THC, performed mostly on student volunteers in the United States, indicate the following:

The first widely publicized studies claimed that smoked marihuana containing 5 to 66 mg delta-9-THC was a "mild intoxicant". It appears that these studies were performed with unextracted material containing, in reality, subthreshold amounts of delta-9-THC.

The half life of delta-9-THC in blood plasma is 28 hours for chronic marihuana smokers, as compared to 57 hours for non-users. Apparent volume of distribution is similar to both groups. Chronic users eliminate significantly more polar metabolites in the urine, and less in the faeces than non-users. The total amount of metabolites eliminated in both groups is the same and requires more than one week. Repeated administration of cannabinoids at less than a week interval will results in accumulation of metabolites in tissue including brain.

Delta-9-THC is three to four times more active when smoked than when ingested.

Tachycardia which is dose related and lasts during the whole period of intoxication is the most significant clinical feature observed after administration of delta-9-THC or cannabis extracts. A dose related conjunctival injection is also observed.

Delta-9-THC in doses of 15 mg smoked and 40 mg ingested is psychotomimetic and will produce hallucinations. Such a dose is within the range which may be consumed by habitual cannabis users in all countries including the United States.

Cannabis extracts containing 5-10 mg of THC smoked or 15-25 mg ingested impair significantly motor and mental performance.

Frequent (daily) users of cannabis will develop physiologic and psychologic tolerance to the drug which will require greater dosage, and may lead them to more potent psychotropic drugs such as LSD or opiate derivatives.

Although cannabis users do not develop any physical dependence identifiable by a specific withdrawal symptom, they present a psychological dependence to the drug.

These studies in clinical pharmacology underline the potential health and social liabilities associated with cannabis intoxication. All of the major effects of cannabis derivatives justify their classification in Delay's functional nomenclature of psychotropic drugs among the "psychodysleptic" compounds which "disintegrate mental function and produce a distortion of judgement and memory with impairment in evaluating the reality situation ".

[balli]

Dude, are you fucking nuts? By that logic, I should have a cloud of pot smoke following me around 24/7.

Based your avatar, sig, your pre-disposition to video games and your awesome comment I can only conclude that yes, you are exactly the type of person who SHOULD have a cloud of chronic smoke around them all day. You're free to join the team if you'd like.

[mavsfan1000]

I wish I had some Marijuana right now. Oh well. Alcohol is fine for now.

[balli]

Marijuana is a drug...its purpose is to fuck you up. If you prefer being fucked up to not being fucked up, your not alone.

When I was a kid, being fucked up was fine. I'm an adult now, responsibilities lead to doing the best I can for me and my family...can't do it being fucked up.

I remember telling everyone when I was in college how I could do things as well, or better when I was fucked up.

I said, and did, a lotta stupid things in college.

Such is life.

Duncan doesn't look too fucked up to me.

...at least on the court :)

Well, I respect what you're saying and your tone more than most of these other jackasses, but I will say this:

That's the exact same thing I say about alcohol. I fucking hate alcohol. The reason- it's purpose is to fuck you up. Literally I say those exact words all the time. Marijuana sir, does not fuck you up.

The day I say "I want to get fucked up" in professing desire of marijuana is the day I'll quit smoking weed.

I know you don't know what it's like to be a smart, tolerant, marijuana smoker in this day and age, but man, all I can say is that the last thing it does is fuck you up.

Hey and I'm going to tell you guys all right now. There are two kinds of marijuana smokers in this world. Very high end elitists, or somewhere below that. Just know that there's an awful lot of us who are smart, normal, well accomplished people who just happen to be connoisseurs when it comes to Cannibus Sativa.

[Mister Sinister]

Based your avatar, sig, your pre-disposition to video games and your awesome comment I can only conclude that yes, you are exactly the type of person who SHOULD have a cloud of chronic smoke around them all day. You're free to join the team if you'd like.
Nah, I'm good. Pot's not my thing. It's not some moral stand, or anything, I just prefer my highs to come from spending time with the people I love. Not to say I have anything against people who do pot, as long as it doesn't become, you know, destructive. They let me do my thing, I let them do theirs, y'know?

[koriwhat]

I've never smoked weed in my life.

Is that wrong?

no. just the more reason to burn. :king

[koriwhat]

Well, I respect what you're saying and your tone more than most of these other jackasses, but I will say this:

That's the exact same thing I say about alcohol. I fucking hate alcohol. The reason- it's purpose is to fuck you up. Literally I say those exact words all the time. Marijuana sir, does not fuck you up.

The day I say "I want to get fucked up" in professing desire of marijuana is the day I'll quit smoking weed.

I know you don't know what it's like to be a smart, tolerant, marijuana smoker in this day and age, but man, all I can say is that the last thing it does is fuck you up.

Hey and I'm going to tell you guys all right now. There are two kinds of marijuana smokers in this world. Very high end elitists, or somewhere below that. Just know that there's an awful lot of us who are smart, normal, well accomplished people who just happen to be connoisseurs when it comes to Cannibus Sativa.


hahaha. whatever. shits and giggles.

[DazedAndConfused]

OOST - Only On Spurs Talk

[e20dylan]

you were probably one of those nerds in high school that nobody would let you smoke with them. ROFL



Don't be so sure about that. Anyway, for those interested, here is a nice review article about the effects of marijuana - with abundant references (all relatively current I might add):








NIDA Home > Drugs of Abuse/Related Topics > Marijuana > InfoFacts > Marijuana


NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana

PDF Version [624K]
Printer-friendly Version
En Español



Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. A dry, shredded green/brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves of the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, it usually is smoked as a cigarette (joint, nail), or in a pipe (bong). It also is smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with marijuana, often in combination with another drug. It might also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form it is called hashish and, as a sticky black liquid, hash oil. Marijuana smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odor. There are countless street terms for marijuana including pot, herb, weed, grass, widow, ganja, and hash, as well as terms derived from trademarked varieties of cannabis, such as Bubble Gum, Northern Lights, Fruity Juice, Afghani #1, and a number of Skunk varieties.

The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). The membranes of certain nerve cells in the brain contain protein receptors that bind to THC. Once securely in place, THC kicks off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the high that users experience when they smoke marijuana.

Extent of Use

In 2004, 14.6 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed. About 6,000 people a day in 2004 used marijuana for the first time—2.1 million Americans. Of these, 63.8 percent were under age 181. In the last half of 2003, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the continental United States, at 12.6 percent, following cocaine (20 percent) and alcohol (48.7 percent)2.

Prevalence of lifetime,* annual, and use within the last 30 days for marijuana remained stable among 10th- and 12th-graders surveyed between 2003 and 2004. However, 8th-graders reported a significant decline in 30-day use and a significant increase in perceived harmfulness of smoking marijuana once or twice and regularly3. Trends in disapproval of using marijuana once or twice and occasionally rose among 8th-graders as well, and 10th-graders reported an increase in disapproval of occasional and regular use for the same period3.


Percentage of 8th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 16.7% 19.9% 23.1% 22.6% 22.2% 22.0%
Annual 13.0 15.8 18.3 17.7 16.9 16.5
30-day 7.8 9.1 11.3 10.2 9.7 9.7
Daily 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.4


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 20.3% 20.4% 19.2% 17.5% 16.3% 16.5%
Annual 15.6 15.4 14.6 12.8 11.8 12.2
30-day 9.1 9.2 8.3 7.5 6.4 6.6
Daily 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0




Percentage of 10th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 30.4% 34.1% 39.8% 42.3% 39.6% 40.9%
Annual 25.2 28.7 33.6 34.8 31.1 32.1
30-day 15.8 17.2 20.4 20.5 18.7 19.4
Daily 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 40.3% 40.1% 38.7% 36.4% 35.1% 34.1%
Annual 32.2 32.7 30.3 28.2 27.5 26.6
30-day 19.7 19.8 17.8 17.0 15.9 15.2
Daily 3.8 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.1




Percentage of 12th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Lifetime 38.2% 41.7% 44.9% 49.6% 49.1% 49.7%
Annual 30.7 34.7 35.8 38.5 37.5 37.8
30-day 19.0 21.2 21.9 23.7 22.8 23.1
Daily 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.0


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Lifetime 48.8% 49.0% 47.8% 46.1% 45.7% 44.8%
Annual 36.5 37.0 36.2 34.9 34.3 33.6
30-day 21.6 22.4 21.5 21.2 19.9 19.8
Daily 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.0


* "Lifetime" refers to use at least once during a respondent’s lifetime. "Annual" refers to use at least once during the year preceding an individual's response to the survey. "30-day" refers to use at least once during the 30 days preceding an individual’s response to the survey.



Effects on the Brain

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain.

In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement4.

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.


Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that an abuser's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana7. The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.


Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers8. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent abuse can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways9. Smoking marijuana possibly increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers10.

Marijuana abuse also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens9,11. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke12. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells13. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


Other Health Effects

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited14. In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors15,16.


Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Depression17, anxiety17, and personality disturbances18 have been associated with chronic marijuana use. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off19,20,25.

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared with their nonsmoking peers21,22,23,24. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the 30 days prior to being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired, even after the students had not taken the drug for at least 24 hours20. These "heavy" marijuana abusers had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had abused marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of long-term heavy marijuana abusers to recall words from a list remained impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4 weeks25. Thus, some cognitive abilities may be restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term heavy use.

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. A study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a pre-employment urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and a 75-percent increase in absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use26. In another study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health27.


Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy

Research has shown that some babies born to women who abused marijuana during their pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli28, increased tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate neurological problems in development29. During the preschool years, marijuana-exposed children have been observed to perform tasks involving sustained attention and memory more poorly than nonexposed children do30,31. In the school years, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in problem-solving skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive30.


Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they abuse the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop abusing the drug. People trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety32. They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately one week after the last use of the drug33.


Genetic Vulnerability

Scientists have found that whether an individual has positive or negative sensations after smoking marijuana can be influenced by heredity. A 1997 study demonstrated that identical male twins were more likely than nonidentical male twins to report similar responses to marijuana abuse, indicating a genetic basis for their response to the drug34. (Identical twins share all of their genes.)

It also was discovered that the twins' shared or family environment before age 18 had no detectable influence on their response to marijuana. Certain environmental factors, however, such as the availability of marijuana, expectations about how the drug would affect them, the influence of friends and social contacts, and other factors that differentiate experiences of identical twins were found to have an important effect.34


Treating Marijuana Problems

The latest treatment data indicate that, in 2002, marijuana was the primary drug of abuse in about 15 percent (289,532) of all admissions to treatment facilities in the United States. Marijuana admissions were primarily male (75 percent), White (55 percent), and young (40 percent were in the 15-–19 age range). Those in treatment for primary marijuana abuse had begun use at an early age; 56 percent had abused it by age 14 and 92 percent had abused it by 1835.

One study of adult marijuana abusers found comparable benefits from a 14-session cognitive-behavioral group treatment and a 2-session individual treatment that included motivational interviewing and advice on ways to reduce marijuana use. Participants were mostly men in their early thirties who had smoked marijuana daily for more than 10 years. By increasing patients' awareness of what triggers their marijuana abuse, both treatments sought to help patients devise avoidance strategies. Abuse, dependence symptoms, and psychosocial problems decreased for at least 1 year following both treatments; about 30 percent of the patients were abstinent during the last 3-month followup period36.

Another study suggests that giving patients vouchers that they can redeem for goods—such as movie passes, sporting equipment, or vocational training—may further improve outcomes37.

Although no medications are currently available for treating marijuana abuse, recent discoveries about the workings of the THC receptors have raised the possibility of eventually developing a medication that will block the intoxicating effects of THC. Such a medication might be used to prevent relapse to marijuana abuse by lessening or eliminating its appeal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H–27, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05–4061). Rockville, MD, 2004. NSDUH is an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 800-729-6686.

2 These data are from the annual Drug Abuse Warning Network, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The survey provides information about emergency department visits that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug. The latest data are available at 800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

3 These data are from the 2005 Monitoring the Future Survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The survey has tracked 12th-graders’ illicit drug use and related attitudes since 1975; in 1991, 8th- and 10th-graders were added to the study. The latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.

4 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, Johnson MR, et al. Cannabinoid receptor localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87(5):1932–1936, 1990.

5 Rodriguez de Fonseca F, et al. Activation of cortocotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science 276(5321):2050–2054, 1997.

6 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, et al. Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(17):10269–10273, 1998.

7 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

8 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158(6):596–601, 1993.

9 Tashkin DP. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152(5):525–530, 1990.

10 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 8(12):1071–1078, 1999.

11 Sridhar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby, NL Jr., et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285–288, 1994.

12 Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York. Plenum, 1975.

13 Cohen S. Adverse effects of marijuana: Selected issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 362:119–124, 1981.

14 Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91(11):1585–1614, 1996.

15 Friedman H, Newton C, Klein TW. Microbial infections, immunomodulation, and drugs of abuse. Clin Microbiol Rev 16(2):209–219, 2003.

16 Zhu LX, Sharma M, Stolina S, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunology 165(1):373–380, 2000.

17 Brook JS, Rosen Z, Brook DW. The effect of early marijuana use on later anxiety and depressive symptoms. NYS Psychologist 35–39, January 2001.

18 Brook JS, Cohen P, Brook DW. Longitudinal study of co-occurring psychiatric disorders and substance use. J Acad Child and Adolescent Psych 37(3):322–330, 1998.

19 Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA 275(7):521–527, 1996.

20 Block RI, Ghoneim MM. Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1–2):219–228, 1993.

21 Lynskey M, Hall W. The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction 95(11):1621–1630, 2000.

22 Kandel DB, Davies M. High school students who use crack and other drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(1):71–80, 1996.

23 Rob M, Reynolds I, Finlayson PF. Adolescent marijuana use: Risk factors and implications. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 24(1):45–56, 1990.

24 Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M. The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 89(10):1549–1554, 1999.

25 Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, et al. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58(10):909–915, 2001.

26 Zwerling C, Ryan J, Orav EJ. The efficacy of pre-employment drug screening for marijuana and cocaine in predicting employment outcome. JAMA 264(20):2639–2643, 1990.

27 Gruber AJ, Pope HG, Hudson JI, et al. Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Medicine 33(8):1415–1422, 2003.

28 Fried PA, Makin JE. Neonatal behavioural correlates of prenatal exposure to marihuana, cigarettes and alcohol in a low risk population. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 9(1):1–7, 1987.

29 Lester BM, Dreher M. Effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on newborn crying. Child Development 60(23/24):764–771, 1989.

30 Fried PA. The Ottawa prenatal prospective study (OPPS): Methodological issues and findings. It’s easy to throw the baby out with the bath water. Life Sciences 56(23–24):2159–2168, 1995.

31 Fried PA, Smith AM. A literature review of the consequences of prenatal marihuana exposure: An emerging theme of a deficiency in aspects of executive function. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23(1):1–11, 2001.

32 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE. Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143(3):302–308, 1999.

33 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al. Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141(4):395–404, 1999.

34 Lyons MJ, Toomey R, Meyer JM, et al. How do genes influence marijuana use? The role of subjective effects. Addiction 92(4):409–417, 1997.

35 These data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 2003: Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions by Primary Substance of Abuse, According to Sex, Age Group, Race, and Ethnicity, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The latest data are available at 800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

36 Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L. Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(5):898–908, 2000.

37 Budney AJ, Higgins ST, Radonovich KJ, et al. Adding voucher-based incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes during treatment for marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(6):1051–1061, 2000.


Revised 4/06 This page has been accessed 7439926 times since 11/5/99.


[InfoFacts Index]



Recommended Reading

NIDA Research Report: Marijuana Abuse

Marijuana: Facts for Teens

Marijuana: Facts Parents Should Know

NIDA Notes: Articles on Marijuana Research


Other NIDA Web Sites

Marijuana-info.org

NIDA for Teens: Marijuana






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIDA Home | Site Map | Search | FAQs | Accessibility | Help | Privacy | FOIA (NIH) | Employment | Print Version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Questions? See our Contact Information. Last updated on Wednesday, January 2, 2008.

[SpursRunHouse]

The heading alone made me laugh so much.

[whottt]

IT'S ILLEGAL. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW = ANARCHY.

IF you desire anarchy, by all means make your own country.

- Mars


I realize you are just saying what you think is right, but you shouldn't just trust the government blindly....it's not like it's a person you can just know personally...it changes, the people running it change, and they don't always have the same ideas about what's best for the American people as the American people do...because a government isn't the American people...it is a government, and it will never be more. So watch the people.

It should never just be blindly trusted.



As for marijuana vs alcohol...


God made Marijuana...man made alcohol...do not call unclean what he has cleansed.

One of them is responsible for more deaths than cancer...and the other one is a plant.

One of them is just about the most psychologically and physically addicting/ health destroying substances consumed by man...and the other one is a plant.

One of them can kill you if you consume enough of it...and one of them has never been known to cause a single death directly from usage, in the entire hisory of man....it is a plant.




It's one thing if you don't want to do it, and you know, I respect that. No one should do it they don't want to do it. That said... it's entirely another thing to poise yourself as some kind of expert on it's effects, impacts and then judge people that have used it....


Because you are analyzing, and judging, from a position of ignorance.


Just sayin'...


PS: You've probably used something more destructive and dangerous...and if you haven't, you will some day, the first time you drink a beer. You will also probably someday use something that is illegal if sold on the street, and you'll be getting it from a doctor....probably just because you asked for it.

[remingtonbo2001]

no. just the more reason to burn. :king

:lol

Still corrupting the lives of youths, I see.

[remingtonbo2001]

Oh and would someone please remind me what this topic has to do with SPURS BASKETBALL?

[mbass]

and there was a study last year that showed a decreased risk of lung cancer in marijauna smokers who also smoke cigs, compared to cig smokers alone

the jury's still out on marijuana because the us govt makes it so damn hard for researchers to do experiments with it. the feds are much more likely to provide marijuana to scientists who they feel are, ahem, more likely to produce the results the feds want.

and crofl waffle at the poster who assumed that people who smoke marijuana can't understand medical reports. there are a ton of very intelligent pot smokers out there who have very difficult, respectable jobs.

but as far as smoking and driving goes...much safer than drinking and driving, but if you can't handle your smoke it can really fuck up your attempts to drive (like stopping 30 feet in front of the stoplight because of over-cautiousness and depth perception troubles, rofl)


jSo please cite your source - and also anything that you can find regarding the effects of cigarettes plus marijuana or either alone.

Another conspiracy theory - the government may provide the funds for most research in this country but grants are awarded following peer review by fellow scientists and rankings of those grant proposals by the reviewers - nothing more and nothing less.

[mbass]

you were probably one of those nerds in high school that nobody would let you smoke with them. ROFL

I'm of an older generation - marijuana wasn't prevalent when I was growing up.

[TwoHandJam]

Two separate questions - 1. is marijuana harmful?; 2. Should marijuana be legal?
I say yes and yes.

Studies show marijuana can be harmful if abused, much like any other drug but I would argue that the side effects of its abuse are less than that of alcohol which again, is legal. You'll notice that most of the studies listed that tout the harmful effects of marijuana (such as those you listed) concentrate on the heavy users i.e. at least daily users.

I would argue that most users are not daily users or heavy users. Just because the drug is illegal doesn't mean that the government has it right. Governments get things wrong all the time just as they did with prohibition and alcohol back in the 30s.

Far too much money and resources are spent lumping cannabis together with meth, coke, heroin etc. and jailing casual users for its use in the name of the "war on drugs" which has been a huge failure. And because of its illegal status combined with the ease of production, marijuana has become a huge financing tool for organized crime just like alcohol during prohibition.

The drug is far less harmful than it's made out to be and its medicinal purposes help sufferers of MS, parkinsons, cancer and a whole host of other afflictions. You can easily die (and many do) from alcohol poisoning but I've yet to read of anyone dying from a THC (the active chemical in cannabis) overdose.

Again, can marijuana be harmful - yes. Is there an acceptable risk when used in moderation - yes. Should it be legalized and regulated - yes.

[remingtonbo2001]

Completely agree with Two Handed Jam.

[spursfan09]

I'm pretty late to this, but isn't bad for an athlete to smoke in the first place? Tim never looks winded on the court. I thought that would be the first "Clue" he might get high.

[fatsack]

if he is, at least he keeps it on the down-low....
has he ever? almost certainly.
does he regularly? doubt it.... especially during the season.

[Extra Stout]

From wiki:

Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman I, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the five pillars of Islam, but this is pure conjecture.
Actually, the crescent and star have long been the symbol of the city which lies on the Golden Horn, even before the Turks conquered it. Obviously, when Mehmet the Conqueror captured the New Rome for his capital, he was quite proud of it, and claimed himself and his empire to be the rightful successor to that of the Caesars. So, the crescent-star became his symbol.

The crescent dates from when the city was called Byzantium, and is in honor of the pagan goddess Diana. The star was added by Roman Emperor Constantine, and represents the Virgin Mary.

[RussN]

I wasn't assuming shit about Duncan with malicious intent. At all.

I'm not some gutter-picking stoner and your almost bigoted hunches are shitty. You blatantly assume all potheads are idiots.

I'm a college graduate almost done with my masters. I work as an architectual drafter doing complex math all day and using complex Cad programs, to create complex fucking drawings.

I'm not going to assume shit about you or your intellect, but man, you don't know shit about me, so why don't you do the same and keep your fuckin' mouth shut next time.


That is weird your boss doesn't drug test you. What is his name and number, maybe I should call him. You might want to smoke all you can now, because when you graduate with your master's degree and get another job you probably will be tested. Then you will have to choose what is more important to you, pot or a good job.

You are right about not being a normal pothead, you are way too angry for that. Go smoke and chill out.

[balli]

Then you will have to choose what is more important to you, pot or a good job.

I don't need a new job. I have my career already and finishing my masters is nothing but a technicality. What a fucking idiot you are. I've smoked with lawyers, other architects, psychologists. My roomate smokes every fucking day and works as an ad-exec. Where do you get the idea that professionals get drug tested more than once when they apply for the job. Hate to break it to you, but unless you operate forklifts or something, you usually don't get tested.


That is weird your boss doesn't drug test you. What is his name and number, maybe I should call him.

Not that my boss isn't well aware already and not that he cares one iota, but you probably would have the audacity to interfere with someone else's life like that you meddling fag. People like you who can't mind your own fucking business make me sick.

[mookie2001]

there are a ton of very intelligent pot smokers out there who have very difficult, respectable jobs.burr burr burrr burrr


like what selling potato chips?

[Phil Hellmuth]

why is this thread still going? :lol

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/1480/shutyoass22fq7.gif

and go smoke a joint.

[RussN]

I don't need a new job. I have my career already and finishing my masters is nothing but a technicality. What a fucking idiot you are. I've smoked with lawyers, other architects, psychologists. My roomate smokes every fucking day and works as an ad-exec. Where do you get the idea that professionals get drug tested more than once when they apply for the job. Hate to break it to you, but unless you operate forklifts or something, you usually don't get tested.



Not that my boss isn't well aware already and not that he cares one iota, but you probably would have the audacity to interfere with someone else's life like that you meddling fag. People like you who can't mind your own fucking business make me sick.


Three points, try to follow.

1. If you would think of getting your master's degree as furthering your education and expanding your knowledge base, instead of "nothing but a technicality" you might, just might, be better off.

2. If you are trying to portray an educated person and back up your pot smoking on this forum, you might not want to curse so much. Try using other words besides "fucking idiot and meddling fag".

3. Why do you keep editing your posts? Are you high?

[LakeShow]

Never leave home without it!