Does THC deprivation last a life time?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I have to be honest, I was scratching my head about your ad hominem complaint, myself. An Ad Hominem attack isn't an attempt to discredit your opponent; it's literal name calling. Had I called you an asshole, that would have been an ad hominem attack.

Actually, no, an ad hominem attack is ANY instance of where someone attacks the arguer's character rather than their argument, usually to discredit their ability to argue in an indirect manner. Insults are only the most blatant form of ad hominem. In latin, "ad hominem" literally means "to the man".

Okay, but my argument was still on topic, and I was actually trying to discredit you in a direct manner -- something that is very much only a fallacy if it's not true. Look back at my point about Muslims and pork; would you really call it an ad hominem attack to say "well, as a Muslim, you're biased against eating pork?" So why would it be an ad-hominem attack to say that, as a teetotaller, you're unfairly biased against mind altering substances?

 

[Akytalusia]

the first 3 months or so are pretty horrible as far as residual effects. but they don't last a lifetime. if she's saying she wants to smoke again after 2 years, then the urge is completely endogenous.

 

[ACman]

It's not an addiction. Compulsion. Like I'm now compelled to play more TF2 when i should be doing work.

Some people just like pot. It agrees with them. As long as it's not an every day thing and it doesn't kick off any latent mental problems then i don't see much problem with it.

It does make them painfully boring to be around though.

Booze on the other hand... Where's my gin? <Glug, glug, glug> Ugggghhhh! That's the stuff.

 

[Zorpheus]

Okay, but my argument was still on topic, and I was actually trying to discredit you in a direct manner -- something that is very much only a fallacy if it's not true. Look back at my point about Muslims and pork; would you really call it an ad hominem attack to say "well, as a Muslim, you're biased against eating pork?" So why would it be an ad-hominem attack to say that, as a teetotaller, you're unfairly biased against mind altering substances?

That comparison would be apt assuming I used any argument that doing drugs was an immoral thing to do, which is, in itself, ad hominem (another definition of it used is when someone tries to appeal to emotions or morality rather than logic during an argument). Instead, I was indicating that a harmful substance that does less harm to you than other available harmful substances is still a harmful substance and that the comparison itself should not be a reason to pursue the substance (as you had indicated in the post I quoted where you said there would be no reason why people shouldn't do Weed if it wasn't illegal).

EDIT: I should add that, as it stands, there is scientific data that backs up either of our arguments somewhere on the Internet, so you can't say that my position is pure bias anyway. A Muslim man can still put forth arguments that pork is bad for you WITHOUT invoking his religious views by pointing things out such as the fact that pork products contain a lot of fat and cholesterol. That would appeal to logic based on data rather than beliefs, which would be a legitimate argument.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Okay, but my argument was still on topic, and I was actually trying to discredit you in a direct manner -- something that is very much only a fallacy if it's not true. Look back at my point about Muslims and pork; would you really call it an ad hominem attack to say "well, as a Muslim, you're biased against eating pork?" So why would it be an ad-hominem attack to say that, as a teetotaller, you're unfairly biased against mind altering substances?

That comparison would be apt assuming I used any argument that doing drugs was an immoral thing to do, which is, in itself, ad hominem (another definition of it used is when someone tries to appeal to emotions or morality rather than logic during an argument). Instead, I was indicating that a harmful substance that does less harm to you than other available harmful substances is still a harmful substance and that the comparison itself should not be a reason to pursue the substance (as you had indicated in the post I quoted where you said there would be no reason why people shouldn't do Weed if it wasn't illegal).

And? The fact that the Muslim's argument is based in morality, while yours is built on an exaggerated view of what constitutes a risky behavior is immaterial. In either case, you're biased against the other view point. It's a fact that pot isn't as bad for you as alcohol, and it's a fact that alcohol really isn't all that bad for you -- heck, depending on what you drink and how much, it can be good for you. If you want to write of Pot on the basis that it's bad for your health, you'd be much better off swearing off bacon or potato chips -- both of which are absolutely terrible for your health.

 

[ACman]

This is why marijuana is considered not to be chemically/physically addictive. Because when you do quit your body naturally and slowly detoxes itself of the THC. If this were not the case then pot would probably be A LOT more addictive.

It also soen't affect the dopamine and endorphin pathways of the brain in the way that tobacco opiates and cocaine do.

 

[Zorpheus]

Exactly how harmful does something have to be for it to be important? Playing video games certainly isnt benefitial or constructive, and certainly sitting on the couch playing them is more harmful than say, going outside and exercising, so is sitting here debating on a forum.

Water certainly can be harmful in large enough ammounts, even when you arent drowning in it, there is hyponatremia. "But you need water to live!" I hear you say. Well watch closely... you use water responsibly and you gain the benefits and mitigate the risks. We dont need marijuana or any other recreational drugs, we dont need a lot of things that occupy our free time, but if you use/do them responsibly you can ENJOY them while mitigating the risks.

Your argument would be correct, UNLESS the thing in question has detrimental effects on the body even during the first use. That's what sets mind-altering substances apart from other things. If someone proved watching DBZ for the first time indisputably made you closer to being retarded (and some people would argue this *lol*), then you could liken it to the opinions people have about drugs. The trouble is, of course, the detrimental effects of certain drugs aren't so cut and dry as that, and the effects also vary between multiple people.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There is no chemical addiction but there is a conditioned response, see just like any other drug marijuana spikes endorphin(happiness hormone) production in your brain, and she misses the happiness boost after a few good tugs on the old pipe.

The solution is will power and other distractions/replacements, hobbies are always a good bet.
And just a friendly warning if she is started to crave happiness supplements she might be getting a bit bored with the relationship.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Okay, but my argument was still on topic, and I was actually trying to discredit you in a direct manner -- something that is very much only a fallacy if it's not true. Look back at my point about Muslims and pork; would you really call it an ad hominem attack to say "well, as a Muslim, you're biased against eating pork?" So why would it be an ad-hominem attack to say that, as a teetotaller, you're unfairly biased against mind altering substances?

That comparison would be apt assuming I used any argument that doing drugs was an immoral thing to do, which is, in itself, ad hominem (another definition of it used is when someone tries to appeal to emotions or morality rather than logic during an argument). Instead, I was indicating that a harmful substance that does less harm to you than other available harmful substances is still a harmful substance and that the comparison itself should not be a reason to pursue the substance (as you had indicated in the post I quoted where you said there would be no reason why people shouldn't do Weed if it wasn't illegal).

EDIT: I should add that, as it stands, there is scientific data that backs up either of our arguments somewhere on the Internet, so you can't say that my position is pure bias anyway. A Muslim man can still put forth arguments that pork is bad for you WITHOUT invoking his religious views by pointing things out such as the fact that pork products contain a lot of fat and cholesterol. That would appeal to logic based on data rather than beliefs, which would be a legitimate argument.

First, appeals to emotion or morality are definitionally not ad homimen. They can be fallacious on their own, but they do not in any way fall into that particular category by any definition I've ever heard of.

Second, the notion of ad hominem is profoundly abused. Ad hominem is a fallacy in that arguing against a person instead of the the topic at hand is illogical. If the character of the interlocutor bears on the discussion, it is not illogical. I don't mean to suggest that that is or isn't the case here (I'll get to that in a minute), but it's worth bearing in mind. Generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid ever saying "that's ad hominem, you're dumb!". Ad hominem is best thought of as an instructional tool for debate - a sort of warning flag that says "uh oh, this might not follow, better be careful". If someone is being illogical, say why, don't say "you're attacking my character and that's not allowed!", say "you're attacking my character, which has nothing to do with this argument". There are many, many arguments where an interlocutor's character has a lot to do with the matter at hand, especially when morality, ethics, and legality are involved.

And I think this is a clear case where the comment in question bears quite a bit on the argument at hand. A large part of these debates naturally hinges on a sort of pros versus cons approach to evaluation of the substances. People who have never tried drugs are much more likely to pay attention to the negative qualities while forgetting why it is people do them in the first place. This would be akin to holding a debate on whether having kids is worth the trouble and not taking into account the reports of actual parents.

These things matter quite a bit when discussions get to the point where people are saying "they might not be that harful, but why do them in the first place?". In these cases, someone who hasn't done any drugs is at a significant disadvantage with respect to evaluating the positive aspects of the substances since they tend to be personal and largely subjective. Additionally, there is usually a strong value judgment involved in this viewpoint that things like pleasure are not an acceptable justification for risking one's health. This is an issue involving an interlocutor themself and is entirely relevant to the question and, as such, involving the character of said interlocutor is not fallacious.

Regarding scientific data and bias, all scientific data is not created equal. Studies are carried out with extremely mistaken methodology every hour of every day all over the world. Researchers blatantly influence their methodology to fish for specific results be it for funding, approval, reputation, or personal stake. A huge part of science is attempting to figure out who did a better job of testing these things, build a consensus of criticism, and move forward on the basis of that consensus. If we're discussing the potential harm of marijuana, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of little to no harm. We're talking the kind of overwhelming that makes such well-attested and agreed-upon phenoma as global warming look like a joke. Even organisations that are clearly biased against marijuana have come out with study after study after study suggesting that there is little to no harm and, in almost every single one, several potential benefits (beyond simple pleasure and experience, which require a pretty puritanical worldview to discount entirely themselves) that are at least worthy of additional study.

 

[Zorpheus]

And? The fact that the Muslim's argument is based in morality, while yours is built on an exaggerated view of what constitutes a risky behavior is immaterial. In either case, you're biased against the other view point. It's a fact that pot isn't as bad for you as alcohol, and it's a fact that alcohol really isn't all that bad for you -- heck, depending on what you drink and how much, it can be good for you. If you want to write of Pot on the basis that it's bad for your health, you'd be much better off swearing off bacon or potato chips -- both of which are absolutely terrible for your health.

You probably didn't see the edited part of my message because I added it much later, so read it over:
"I should add that, as it stands, there is scientific data that backs up either of our arguments somewhere on the Internet, so you can't say that my position is pure bias anyway. A Muslim man can still put forth arguments that pork is bad for you WITHOUT invoking his religious views by pointing things out such as the fact that pork products contain a lot of fat and cholesterol. That would appeal to logic based on data rather than beliefs, which would be a legitimate argument."

Anyway, apart from pointing out the fact that we weren't arguing about the effects of bacon or potato chips, I would also point out that neither bacon nor potato chips directly effect the way your brain processes information and thus affect your ability to control how much you use of them. This makes them much more dangerous, IMO, than fatty foods.

Anyway, you and I can likely go back and forth with this all night, and neither of us would ever be considered truly right, because our views are formed as much out of opinion as fact, and not even scientists agree on just how harmful some drugs are. You're willing to expose yourself to certain things I wouldn't. I disagree with your views, but I respect your opinion.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

THC isn't physically addictive. The amount required for it to be toxic is about a block the same physical size as you, smoked within a day.

Unlikely.

It is, like Extra Credits have said about games, not an addiction, but a compulsion. What your friend is feeling isn't cold turkey, but a need to escape. Something about her life, or her perspective, is driving her to take up THC in order to escape.

That's what needs fixing right now. Why she needs it, rather than what she needs.

Nicotine, however, that lessens within 2 weeks but never actually goes away. And it maybe the Nicotine she's missing.

But, as others have said, this is a dangerous woman to be in a relationship with.

 

[HeallunRumblebelly]

In short, as many have pointed it, it raises natural neurotransmitters in the CNS (primarily dopamine) and all pleasurable experiences (and some negative ones in the mentally ill, including developmental disorders) can be psychologically addictive. One can generally overcome psychological addictions by intentionally refraining from the activity for a time.

Other drugs can be physically addictive. One way they can do this is by competing for receptors in the CNS. Lets take dopamine for example. Lets say a drug competes (and wins, duh ) for receptors in the CNS. This can have several detrimental effects, two of which are: a) The body may simply stop producing dopamine in affected receptors (which more would be affected over time) and then by stopping use of said drug, the body would not be having its dopamine needs met in CNS neurotransmission (which if severe enough can cause death, which is why harder drugs like heroin, cocaine withdrawal can cause death if stopped abruptly) or b) the receptors, not used to receiving this new drug which mimics the neurotransmitter at such high levels may "burn out" the receptors, leaving them unable to accept the dopamine once the drug has stopped being taken. Users with this problem often have a...unending depression, which is as horrible as it sounds.

Drugs like THC generally stimulate the brain to produce natural neurotransmitter(s) at a greater rate, which is unlikely to cause burnout, but may cause the user to have unpleasant side effects when stopping the drug. This can range from mild to severe and addictive personalities and impulsivity can have a large effect on chances of relapse.

Hope this answers your question, it got kind of uh, long.

I need a damn avatar already, ugh D=

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

And? The fact that the Muslim's argument is based in morality, while yours is built on an exaggerated view of what constitutes a risky behavior is immaterial. In either case, you're biased against the other view point. It's a fact that pot isn't as bad for you as alcohol, and it's a fact that alcohol really isn't all that bad for you -- heck, depending on what you drink and how much, it can be good for you. If you want to write of Pot on the basis that it's bad for your health, you'd be much better off swearing off bacon or potato chips -- both of which are absolutely terrible for your health.

You probably didn't see the edited part of my message because I added it much later, so read it over:
"I should add that, as it stands, there is scientific data that backs up either of our arguments somewhere on the Internet, so you can't say that my position is pure bias anyway. A Muslim man can still put forth arguments that pork is bad for you WITHOUT invoking his religious views by pointing things out such as the fact that pork products contain a lot of fat and cholesterol. That would appeal to logic based on data rather than beliefs, which would be a legitimate argument."

Anyway, apart from pointing out the fact that we weren't arguing about the effects of bacon or potato chips, I would also point out that neither bacon nor potato chips directly effect the way your brain processes information and thus affect your ability to control how much you use of them. This makes them much more dangerous, IMO, than fatty foods.

Anyway, you and I can likely go back and forth with this all night, and neither of us would ever be considered truly right, because our views are formed as much out of opinion as fact, and not even scientists agree on just how harmful some drugs are. You're willing to expose yourself to certain things I wouldn't. I disagree with your views, but I respect your opinion.

Actually, bacon and potato chips inarguably affect the way your brain processes information. There is absolutely no debate whatsoever over this question. Anything you experience, much less chemicals you ingest (guess what bacon and potato chips and all food are made out of!), affects the way your brain processes information.

There's also an implicit assumption here that the way your brain processes information natively (abstracting away from the above issue that really clouds what "natively" is supposed to mean) is inherently superior. Though you could hold it as a personal belief, you would have a very, very hard time offering a defensible justification for this view.

And as for how much you use of them - that's actually an empirical question. You're assuming not only that marijuana lowers inhibitions (I assume by comparison with alcohol and other drugs), but also that it lowers inhibitions against ingestion of additional drugs specifically. Neither of these assumptions are really borne out in the research at all. And, since it isn't chemically addictive, there is also no direct compulsion (again, there might be a compulsion in the same way that you have a compulsion to play more videogames or watch more television, but that's quite a different thing) to seek more as in the case of, say, alcohol or other, harder drugs.

Even beyond that, marijuana has an incredible plateau effect. Rather quickly you get to the point where you really can't derive any greater effects by ingesting more and that level is remarkably safe. And even if you were to do more beyond that level, it is literally impossible to experience acute toxic effects from marijuana. The LD50 is so high as to be completely unknown for humans. We can't even really give accurate guesses at it. Even if you do believe (despite scientific consensus) that there are harmful effects of long-term use, they're not hypothesised to have anything to do with how much you use on each occasion and, since the acute effects are remarkably short-lived, it's more or less unthinkable that one use could prompt subsequent uses at large enough time intervals to lead directly to chronic use.

 

[snakeakaossi]

Dutchman here. Not a pro in weed information, but I know a few stuff.

but now all of a sudden after at least 2 years after the last time she smoked she's going on and on about how she needs to smoke again.

Dude, this right here, I'm afraid it's not the marihuana. After such a long time, a backlash might lie more in something psychological. She is looking back for a time when she was indifferently happy and mellow, which was the time when she smoked, the time of chemically induced happiness from the THC.

I want you to go over a checklist for me:
- How is her career? Is she making the progress she wants?

- How is her family doing? Has she lost someone dear to her recently?

- How is your relationship? After this one and a half year, do you two know how to spend your life together? Do you two still feel free to do whatever you want? This one is especially important, because you also told us you are a restriction on her weed consumption. Maybe you are (unintentionally) a restriction on something else and she is trying to force some freedom by smoking. (Psychology majors, please correct me if I am wrong)

- Is she taking birth control pills? This one is also very important. The pill is not without its side effects. Not everyone is comfortable with the hormonal overhaul that comes with it. My own GF, but also some of my friends, were in a constant state of crankiness and desperation when taking the pill. If she is taking it, switch back to condoms and see if the craving for Dutch vegetables stays after 3 months.

I hope this helps you. I don't need the answers to this checklist, just use it to pinpoint something wrong and try to take the problem out.

 

[Zorpheus]

First, appeals to emotion or morality are definitionally not ad homimen. They can be fallacious on their own, but they do not in any way fall into that particular category by any definition I've ever heard of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

With all due respect, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean the definition isn't true. Next time, look it up.

Second, the notion of ad hominem is profoundly abused. Ad hominem is a fallacy in that arguing against a person instead of the the topic at hand is illogical. If the character of the interlocutor bears on the discussion, it is not illogical. I don't mean to suggest that that is or isn't the case here (I'll get to that in a minute), but it's worth bearing in mind. Generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid ever saying "that's ad hominem, you're dumb!". Ad hominem is best thought of as an instructional tool for debate - a sort of warning flag that says "uh oh, this might not follow, better be careful". If someone is being illogical, say why, don't say "you're attacking my character and that's not allowed!", say "you're attacking my character, which has nothing to do with this argument". There are many, many arguments where an interlocutor's character has a lot to do with the matter at hand, especially when morality, ethics, and legality are involved.

Ad hominem is pretty much universally considered weak arguing, especially in lieu of actual information. I called ad hominem in this case because he knew nothing about me nor my habits, and yet based his entire rebuttal on what he assumed my habits were and that they did not entitle me to an informed conclusion. Assumptions are, in general, weaknesses in any argument. Beliefs or personal experiences in a particular subject do NOT bar anyone from being able to form an argument on a particular issue that is not based on those beliefs or experiences; again, if the foundation of my argument was that doing drugs was immoral, then yeah, my character should be called into question, because I essentially made an argument based on my character (and not founded in logic to begin with). But I didn't. I merely pointed out that marijuana is still considered a harmful substance, and that's stuff I can pull articles based on studies and investigations to support. The fact that he decided to ignore the merits of my argument and basically accuse me of bias is weak arguing, especially since he had no idea whether I had actually done any substances myself or not. Furthermore, even if I HADN'T partaken of any of those substances, I could still quite ably form a well-researched fact-based argument, so his assumption that I was bashing something I was morally against contributes nothing to the act of rebutting the argument.

People who have never tried drugs are much more likely to pay attention to the negative qualities while forgetting why it is people do them in the first place. This would be akin to holding a debate on whether having kids is worth the trouble and not taking into account the reports of actual parents.

What difference does it make if parents would be consulted in this case or not? Yes, parents would be able to put forth a lot of emotional feedback as to why kids are worth it, but that's not an argument based in logic or facts, just their opinions. A man who doesn't want children would perhaps have additional motivation to research facts based on why kids aren't worth it, but that does not mean any facts he does come up with are automatically rendered unusable by his opinion on the matter. It may cause him not to fully research the issue on the opposing viewpoint, perhaps, but that's incidental, and the idea that all men who don't want children will poorly research the opposing viewpoint as to why kids are worth it is a flimsy assumption. This further illustrates just how weak ad hominem arguments really are.

 

[ultimateownage]

Try being less controlling.