Why are drug users almost always very thin?

[Guest]

-snip-

Well thanks for pointing it out and not going into detail, really helps.

 

*Claps*

[Recon97]

OP,tell me is it really necessary to do drugs?

[Guest]

OP,tell me is it really necessary to do drugs?

I only drink alcohol.

[TheKleen]

I only drink alcohol.

 

Which is a drug.

[Guest]

Which is a drug.

Which is why I said 'only'.... Pay attention man.

[Delusional Phil]

Don't know. Maybe it speeds up metabolism? 

Maybe it overwhelmed the brain so much that it surpressed your body ... Imagine all the dopamine being release into the blood stream ... 

[Sauron]

No, no it hasn't. People who have negative effects tend to find other drugs or just stop using altogether. Long term users can tolerate the psychedelic qualities, the only thing that's really harmful.

Of the 483 compunds in weed, the most common dozen are extremely healthy for you and overpower the trace amounts of any potentially harmful ones.

 

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-use-causes-brain-damage-confirmed-241869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

 

Not to mention the inherent lung damage caused by smoking it, if that's the way you assume it (just like tobacco):

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/marijuana-lung-health.html?referrer=https://www.google.it/

http://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resources/marijuana.pdf

 

Define "extremely healthy". Aside from being a RELATIVELY safe to use painkiller, I don't see a lot of benefits coming from it.

[ObeseWalrus]

Drugs often leave you with no apetite.

[krakatoa94]

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

http://www.medicaldaily.com/marijuana-use-causes-brain-damage-confirmed-241869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

 

Not to mention the inherent lung damage caused by smoking it, if that's the way you assume it (just like tobacco):

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/marijuana-lung-health.html?referrer=https://www.google.it/

http://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resources/marijuana.pdf

 

Define "extremely healthy". Aside from being a RELATIVELY safe to use painkiller, I don't see a lot of benefits coming from it.

 

Let's start with the piss poor sensationalism in your link to Medical Daily. Please explain to me how this:

 

"84% reduction in streamline count in the fimbria and an 88% reduction in the commissural pathways extending to the precuneus

[...] This should not be interpreted as evidence for a substantial reduction in the absolute number of axonal fibres comprising these structures, since a streamline is not tantamount to an individual axon."

 

Translates to this:

 

"Brain damage confirmed [...] there was more than 80 percent reduction of white matter in the brains of users."

 

You don't need to be a neuroscientist to know that an 80 percent reduction of white matter would literally kill you. Not only was this utterly misleading, it was in reference to a study of only 59 people and wasn't even peer reviewed.

 

Virtually none of the citations in the Wikipedia article are peer reviewed and, perhaps due to Wikipedia's efforts of sincerity, the summation of each study explicitly contains disclaimers such as "may worsen", "is associated with", "evidence is weak", "controversial", et cetera et cetera. I hardly consider that page "proof" of anything. 

 

"Imaging studies suggest that long-term exposure does not lead to decreases in white matter or grey matter volume, but may lead to reductions in hippocampal volume." says Wikipedia.

Now Wikipedia and Medical Daily are providing conflicting information. Does it reduce white matter or not?

 

Wikipedia also includes a link to the heavily debunked "gateway drug" myth that for some reason is still prevalent in the media. Several studies have disputed this idea, showing a reverse correlation with legalization, wherein use of other illicit substances actually decreased as marijuana use increased. 

 

The Wikipedia article has numerous citations to peer reviewed, randomized, placebo controlled, longitudinal studies and meta-analyses of the positive effects of marijuana, which I'm guessing you just skimmed past before providing the entire article as a "source". A meta-analysis of 33 studies concluded that there are no long term negative cognitive effects of chronic marijuana use.

 

"Regular cannabis use has not been shown to cause significant abnormalities in lung function." says Wikipedia. Hmm, this seems to disagree with your Thoracic link, a document I might add that contains no sources whatsoever: "Heavy marijuana smokers also are likely to develop lung damage because marijuana smoke contains many of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke." More piss poor sensationalism. According to logistic regression models of over 2,000 cases of lung cancer, no link exists between marijuana use and squamous carcinoma. 

 

Literally every health study cited on the ALA's page you linked to has been contested by other studies. The ALA claims to support research into the benefits of marijuana use but only lists (poorly substantiated) negative effects. How curious. There are plenty of peer reviewed studies suggesting that there is absolutely no correlation between marijuana smokers and chronic bronchitis, reduced large airways, HIV patient immuno-suppression, general immuno-suppression (outside of T-cells) or lower respiratory tract infections. The only two widely accepted problems they listed - Aspergillus mold growing on the plant and holding in the marijuana smoke too long - have nothing to do with the chemical makeup of marijuana. Aspergillus mold is an extremely rare occurrence in the wild and not a problem at all to indoor grow-ops. Holding in smoke for longer than a second is the fault of idiots that think it will get them higher (it won't). 

 

The ALA is touting off several contested studies as established fact, which is in stark contrast to how science actually works. They even admit "More research is needed into the effects of marijuana on health, especially lung health" after a series of Wikipedia-reminiscent phrases like "not possible to establish", "no clear evidence", "no data exists", et cetera et cetera. At the very least, your ALA link should be met with skepticism, as they themselves admit several times, due to the sheer volume of disputed evidence. 

 

The reason you don't see a lot of benefits coming from it is because you don't care to look for any. You barely take the time to read your own poor source material. Every supposed risk of marijuana use has been contested by just as many studies, whether that's impaired motor function, fetal development, depression, addiction, psychosis, et cetera, suggesting either neutral or regressive causalities with extremely low p values (>.0005p in some cases). 

 

You want me to define extremely healthy, in regards to the cannabinoid content of marijuana? No need, the Journal of Pharamcological Sciences has summed it up pretty well in a meta-analysis of over 200 peer reviewed studies:

[Misanthrope]

If you're going with stereotypes alcohol is a drug and we all know about beer belly.

[Counter-Strike Player]

Fun fact (for people who don't know): Alcohol is POISON. It's actually more damaging.

 

I'd like a reputable source on that please. While I don't doubt that ethanol has damaging effects, here's an even MORE-FUN fact you: consuming a moderate amount of ethanol combined with stubbornly eating the standard "Western" diet (you know the one with processed meats with added nitrites (fried into extremely-oxidizing nitrosamines), hydrogenated oils, high animal cholesterol) will actually undue some of that arterial damage than if you were to consume no ethanol at all. You want the definition of "double-edged"? That would ethanol.

 

Source.

[krakatoa94]

I'd like a reputable source on that please. While I don't doubt that ethanol has damaging effects, here's an even MORE-FUN fact you: consuming a moderate amount of ethanol combined with stubbornly eating the standard "Western" diet (you know the one with processed meats with added nitrites (fried into extremely-oxidizing nitrosamines), hydrogenated oils, high animal cholesterol) will actually undue some of that arterial damage than if you were to consume no ethanol at all. You want the definition of "double-edged"? That would ethanol.

 

Source.

 

You failed to mention the second, more important part of the results, "No additional benefit from alcohol was found among those with the healthiest behaviour profile", which led to an overall conclusion that "The cardioprotective benefit from moderate drinking does not apply equally to all drinkers, and this variability should be emphasised in public health messages." Your post was roughly a public health message, in which you specifically failed to emphasize the variability of individual cases, suggesting an overall positive effect would be seen equally among moderate drinkers.

 

Futhermore, the extremely high risk of developing cancer, liver disease and myocardial infarction anyway does not justify the use to mitigate possible arterial damage. A more recent study published in February using 5x as many people (>50,000 subjects) suggests that moderate drinking has no overall positive effect on health after controlling for selection bias, socioeconomic variability, age, sex and genetic predisposition. 

 

One theory that has been proposed numerous times to explain rare positive studies that pop up every few years (in contrast to hundreds of negative studies and meta-analyses) is that moderate drinkers have a higher degree of impulse control. As a result, they are less likely to binge drink or engage in other unhealthy lifestyle indulgences (inactivity, overeating, smoking). 

 

Fringe health benefits aside, the societal damage alcohol causes is unmatched to any other drug in the world.

[Counter-Strike Player]

You failed to mention the second, more important part of the results, "No additional benefit from alcohol was found among those with the healthiest behaviour profile", which led to an overall conclusion that "The cardioprotective benefit from moderate drinking does not apply equally to all drinkers, and this variability should be emphasised in public health messages." Your post was roughly a public health message, in which you specifically failed to emphasize the variability of individual cases, suggesting an overall positive effect would be seen equally among moderate drinkers.

 

Futhermore, the extremely high risk of developing cancer, liver disease and myocardial infarction anyway does not justify the use to mitigate possible arterial damage. A more recent study published in February using 5x as many people (>50,000 subjects) suggests that moderate drinking has no overall positive effect on health after controlling for selection bias, socioeconomic variability, age, sex and genetic predisposition. 

 

One theory that has been proposed numerous times to explain rare positive studies that pop up every few years (in contrast to hundreds of negative studies and meta-analyses) is that moderate drinkers have a higher degree of impulse control. As a result, they are less likely to binge drink or engage in other unhealthy lifestyle indulgences (inactivity, overeating, smoking). 

 

Fringe health benefits aside, the societal damage alcohol causes is unmatched to any other drug in the world.

 

I know, and I understand your view, but the fact remains that people are (and will forever be) "stubborn" and that's why I used that word. Do you know how many people in the western world eat a proper diet following the recommended dietary guidelines by the USDA, don't use tobacco, and have the recommended amount of exercise by the AHA every day? Would "close to 0%" be a fair estimate? The difficulty in achieving a "moderate" drinking level every day is a skill in itself as well. If that's an option for the "stubborn" then I say go for it.

 

I'd also like to see your source you referenced.

 

P.S. I'm not "defending" ethanol for the misguided here. There is also a credible breast cancer link I can source if any of you are interested. Eat grapes (with seeds) as they probably have an even better effect.

[krakatoa94]

I know, and I understand your view, but the fact remains that people are (and will forever be) "stubborn" and that's why I used that word. Do you know how many people in the western world eat a proper diet following the recommended dietary guidelines by the USDA, don't use tobacco, and have the recommended amount of exercise by the AHA every day? Would "close to 0%" be a fair estimate? The difficulty in achieving a "moderate" drinking level every day is a skill in itself as well. If that's an option for the "stubborn" then I say go for it.

 

I'd also like to see your source you referenced.

 

P.S. I'm not "defending" ethanol for the misguided here. There is also a credible breast cancer link I can source if any of you are interested. Eat grapes (with seeds) as they probably have an even better effect.

 

I came out rude and assuming, I'm really sorry. I get emotional about drug science and I need to tone it down. 

 

My assuming your defense of alcohol was unwarranted. You didn't state anything invalid.

 

Here is the study I referenced.

 

I think what bothers me about these studies is that the average citizen will look at some quote out of context and make their own far reaching assumptions. My dad believes all sorts of wacky stuff that supposedly justified his past alcohol abuse. Having such a large portion of the population be this degree of stubborn is largely a cultural issue. We need to change the vernacular of media and science journalism and stop looking for any justification for our unhealthy indulgences. Tens of millions of people in America alone have convinced themselves that they're obese due to genetics or a slow metabolism, or that exercise is some mysterious artform reserved for only the most dedicated gym rats. It's just sad to watch the world go down the toilet like that when the solution is so easy.

 

As far as the advice to eat grapes, I would hazard a guess that it's due to specific molecules within the food. If that's the case, and it probably is, concentrated extracts and synthetic molecules would outperform the natural grapes by all measures. Nature rarely provides significant health benefits, or if it does it always comes with risks or ambiguity. Man-made drugs are always cheaper, stronger and more precise. "Health promoting foods" is a largely unreliable method of disease mitigation. Food is simply for sustenance, and even in that respect it doesn't do a very good job. 

[Overkilled]

Well explain snoop dogg and wiz khalifa