Honestly, the OP question is a no-brainer.....
I think a more difficult question to answer is:
Which is WORSE for your health: marijuana or potatoes? http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/potato.asp
Potatoes are more toxic...
Also, in their french fried or chipped form, they can cause severe health problems, particularly when mixed with marijuana.
No, it isn't. You can't answer it without offering additional parameters. For example, if we compared a glass or two of red wine against a joint or two a night? Hardly a no-brainer.
an experiment... video tape yourself blitzed bombed whatever you called it and see what
the straight eye sees. Now be in the shoes of a tiny child learning...
This is a great idea, I may have to try this out in the privacy of my hotel room next week.
comebackgirl -- you're in mental health, right? Any suggestions for a psychological activity/test to try on on said video, something that would challenge the brain just enough to help illustrate the deficiencies of an alcohol-impaired cortex?
Actually I think someone did this as part of our 8th grade science fair I think they had their parents do motor activities - Something that would involve hand- eye coordination, speak a complicated sentence, write something, etc. But I'm all for you recording yourselves dancing and then posting to demonstrate the effects.
I'm all for setting a good example. It's part of why I don't smoke and only drink on occasion, but there really is a biological basis to addiction. That's why some people can party all through school and then leave it behind and others can't. My entire family smokes (cigarettes) yet I never have. My friends parents smoke marijuana regularly and he never did. Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
an experiment... video tape yourself blitzed bombed whatever you called it and see what
the straight eye sees. Now be in the shoes of a tiny child learning...
This is a great idea, I may have to try this out in the privacy of my hotel room next week.
comebackgirl -- you're in mental health, right? Any suggestions for a psychological activity/test to try on on said video, something that would challenge the brain just enough to help illustrate the deficiencies of an alcohol-impaired cortex?
I dunno... I don't think I once saw my parents drunk when I was growing up, and and I'm a complete lush!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Actually I think someone did this as part of our 8th grade science fair I think they had their parents do motor activities - Something that would involve hand- eye coordination, speak a complicated sentence, write something, etc. But I'm all for you recording yourselves dancing and then posting to demonstrate the effects.
Are you suggesting that I have the scientific capacity of an 8th grader? I'm flattered.
I'm all for setting a good example. It's part of why I don't smoke and only drink on occasion, but there really is a biological basis to addiction. That's why some people can party all through school and then leave it behind and others can't. My entire family smokes (cigarettes) yet I never have. My friends parents smoke marijuana regularly and he never did. Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Honest question -- is there any scientific evidence that indicates that a child who grows up in a home where alcohol is used responsibly has less of a chance of alcohol abuse later than a child who grew up with teetotalers?
Well... if we are to read the Daily Mail article - the survey says... 18 rated films are worse. Teens that watch those unsupervised can become alcoholics!
Most of us here are talking 'moderation', not binge drinking, passing out drinking, being completely out of your head - maybe even going on to hard drugs.
Honest question -- is there any scientific evidence that indicates that a child who grows up in a home where alcohol is used responsibly has less of a chance of alcohol abuse later than a child who grew up with teetotalers?
I see a real difference between France, where kids are 'introduced' to alcohol (eg a little bit of wine, etc.) in the home and, for example, the US or the UK. Less binge drinking, feeling one 'needs' to go out and get drunk...
But this is just observation. I'm sure there is proper research out there.
Actually I think someone did this as part of our 8th grade science fair I think they had their parents do motor activities - Something that would involve hand- eye coordination, speak a complicated sentence, write something, etc. But I'm all for you recording yourselves dancing and then posting to demonstrate the effects.
Are you suggesting that I have the scientific capacity of an 8th grader? I'm flattered.
I'm all for setting a good example. It's part of why I don't smoke and only drink on occasion, but there really is a biological basis to addiction. That's why some people can party all through school and then leave it behind and others can't. My entire family smokes (cigarettes) yet I never have. My friends parents smoke marijuana regularly and he never did. Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Honest question -- is there any scientific evidence that indicates that a child who grows up in a home where alcohol is used responsibly has less of a chance of alcohol abuse later than a child who grew up with teetotalers?
I believe there are definitive studies showing that a predisposition towards alcoholism is an inherited trait, meaning that it's genetic. So it does tend to run in families, but not necessarily because of influence. I.e., someone is more likely to be an alcoholic if their uncle and great grandfather were, even if they never met them. So if someone's parent is an alcoholic, they might be more likely to be one too, but not necessarily because they were around it (I would think that would be a deterrent, actually, if they managed to avoid or resist the inherited predisposition. It certainly was for my mother and a few othe people I know with alcoholic parents).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Honestly, the OP question is a no-brainer.....
I think a more difficult question to answer is:
Which is WORSE for your health: marijuana or potatoes? http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/potato.asp
Potatoes are more toxic...
Also, in their french fried or chipped form, they can cause severe health problems, particularly when mixed with marijuana.
No, it isn't. You can't answer it without offering additional parameters. For example, if we compared a glass or two of red wine against a joint or two a night? Hardly a no-brainer.
Fair enough.
With minimal consumption, MJ is probably the most harmful...then potatoes, then wine.
With extreme consumption, intent on OD'ing....your wine test subject would die first...then the potato guy...the MJ guy would probably fall asleep with a helluva headache.
There is a train of thoughts (well.. more than thoughts) that argue all addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.) are based on biology (genes) but in order for these genetic factors to develop, it requires the right environmental conditions as well (could include lifestyle, exposure to the addiction via 'familiars' and how one reacts to these). So, whilst your mother or father could have passed on the 'gene', it may not manifest itself for you or for several generations if the conditions aren't 'right'. I know there is a lot of literature about this if one wishes to check it out.
That's why I listed it as the least harmful of the three, in moderation
(now, if the average person moderately used a vaporizer instead of moderately smoking, that would probably be up for debate)
Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
Actually I think someone did this as part of our 8th grade science fair I think they had their parents do motor activities - Something that would involve hand- eye coordination, speak a complicated sentence, write something, etc. But I'm all for you recording yourselves dancing and then posting to demonstrate the effects.
Are you suggesting that I have the scientific capacity of an 8th grader? I'm flattered.
I'm all for setting a good example. It's part of why I don't smoke and only drink on occasion, but there really is a biological basis to addiction. That's why some people can party all through school and then leave it behind and others can't. My entire family smokes (cigarettes) yet I never have. My friends parents smoke marijuana regularly and he never did. Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Honest question -- is there any scientific evidence that indicates that a child who grows up in a home where alcohol is used responsibly has less of a chance of alcohol abuse later than a child who grew up with teetotalers?
I would never suggest that! But I would love to monitor a little 10C experiment. Who's in?
I don't have any articles specific to your question on hand. My area of focus is on trauma, so most of the research I have stored relates to that. I'm sure there is research that addresses your question though. You could try the American Journal on Addictions, the Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, or the Journal of Addiction Medicine - they should all have scholarly articles that are peer reviewed.
Pj_Soul is correct that it does run in families - usually a genetic predisposition triggered by environmental factors. Here are 2 anecdotal situations. My older brother was adopted as a baby. His biological parents both had addictions (cocaine and alcohol I believe). He, my younger brother and I all grew up in the same home. He developed a polysubstance addiction, my younger brother and I only drink alcohol on occasion. While my parents didn't drink or use drugs (other than cigarettes), there were definitely other environmental factors that were unhealthy and could have contributed to his development of an addiction. I wonder if he had made different friends, or had a different way of coping with stress or had a different support available to him if he would have gone on to have an addiction. My best friend's sister was also adopted as a baby. Their parents never drank or smoked at all. My friend does not drink at all, but her sister is also addicted to numerous drugs. I've seen countless other examples of it happening in the opposite direction (parents used heavily and kid never develops and addiction) It's interesting stuff.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
I think this is very true. It was definitely true for me. My 2 closest friends growing up didn't drink, smoke weed or cigarettes. As I mentioned before, my parents didn't drink or use marijuana, but they are very heavy cigarette smokers. I count my friends as probably the main reason that I never tried smoking. And you are right - most kids are trying to distance themselves as much as possible from their parents at their age It's developmentally appropriate.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
...
Count me in. I hated the taste of both alcohol and cigarettes when I first tried them. But, I got used to them. I first drank alcohol (beer) at parties... then, switched to crap wine (Boone's Farm, Annie Greenspring) because it tasted more like Kool-aid... then, Sloe Gin or Tequila mixed with 7-Up or Orange juice.
I didn't try pot til I got out of high school.
Alcohol was my gateway.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
I think this is very true. It was definitely true for me. My 2 closest friends growing up didn't drink, smoke weed or cigarettes. As I mentioned before, my parents didn't drink or use marijuana, but they are very heavy cigarette smokers. I count my friends as probably the main reason that I never tried smoking. And you are right - most kids are trying to distance themselves as much as possible from their parents at their age It's developmentally appropriate.
I agree it comes down your peers that you hang out with as a youth or an adult. I don't care for alcohol at all, my few experiences with drinking have not been pretty so I don't drink very much. I mean i keep a botlle of Jamaican Overproof White Rum and i keep it not to drink but to help when anyone of us in our home gets sick from a cold. BTW my recipe works especially with the kids.
I have a drink maybe once or twice a month and I DO know my limits. I like to go dancing at the club and I'll be the only there drinking cranberry juice with nothing in it.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
That really about wraps it up and says it all, Jeanwah. I'm surprised to see so much discussion around something that seems so abvious- especially among those of us with personal experience with both substances- not to mention the studies, statistics etc. that are out there to confirm this belief.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
...
Count me in. I hated the taste of both alcohol and cigarettes when I first tried them. But, I got used to them. I first drank alcohol (beer) at parties... then, switched to crap wine (Boone's Farm, Annie Greenspring) because it tasted more like Kool-aid... then, Sloe Gin or Tequila mixed with 7-Up or Orange juice.
I didn't try pot til I got out of high school.
Alcohol was my gateway.
Sounds like a familiar story to me too. And I want to hear more about the stadium full of stoned Raiders fans. That sounds very interesting to me.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm too tired to pick apart the things I felt were unfair in the link pandora posted about effects of marijuana....I did want to post this one article. While it focuses on marijuana and driving, I think it dispells a lot of myth and hype about marijuana (from norml, with footnotes: have at 'er ), and I think it's relevant to the parenting discussion, too. It's long, but worth the read.
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review
By Paul Armentano
September 12, 2011
Cannabis and Driving
Policy debates regarding marijuana law reform invariably raise the question: "How does society address concerns regarding cannabis consumption and driving?" The subject is worthy of serious discussion. NORML's Board of Directors addressed this issue by ratifying a "no driving" clause to the organization's "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use"[1] stating, "Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer with motorists than alcohol and many prescription drugs, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition."
Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the degree to which cannabis intoxication impairs actual driving performance. Unlike alcohol, which is known to increase drivers' risk-taking behavior and is a primary contributor in on-road accidents, marijuana's acute impact on psychomotor skills is subtle and its real-world impact in automobile crashes is inconclusive.
Drugged Driving: True Threat Or False Panic?
Survey data indicates that approximately 112 million Americans (46 percent of the US population) have experimented with the use of illicit substances.[2] Of these, more than 20 million (8.3 percent of the population) self-identify as "current" or "monthly" users of illicit drugs,[3] and more than 10 million Americans say that they've operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of an illicit substance in the past year.[4] These totals, while far from negligible, suggest that the prevalence of illicit drug use among US drivers is far less than the prevalence of alcohol among this same population.[5]
To date, "[The] role of [illicit] drugs as a causal factor in traffic crashes involving drug-positive drivers is still not well understood."[6] While some studies have indicated that illicit drug use is associated with an increased risk of accident, a relationship has not yet been clearly established regarding the use of psychoactive substances and crash severity.[7] Some reviews of traffic fatality data indicate that, in general, drivers with the presence of illicit drugs in their system possess an enhanced fatality risk compared to sober drivers. However, this risk is far lower than the fatality risk associated with drivers who operate a vehicle with the presence of alcohol in their system above or near the legal limit for intoxication.[8] According to one review of the literature: "The risk of all drug-positive drivers compared to drug-free drivers is similar to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The risk is also similar to drivers above age 60 compared to younger drivers [around age 35]."[9]
Marijuana is the most common illicit substance consumed by persons who report driving after drug use.[10] Epidemiological research also indicates that cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug detected in fatally injured drivers and motor vehicle crash victims.[11] Reasons for this fact are twofold. One, cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug among the US population, with nearly one out of two Americans admitting having tried it.[12] Two, marijuana is the most readily detectable illicit drug in toxicological tests. Marijuana's primary psychoactive compound, THC, may accumulate and be detected in blood for several hours in occasional users; in some chronic users, THC may be present in blood for a period of days after past use,[13-15] long after any performance impairing effects have worn off.[16] In addition, non-psychoactive byproducts of cannabis, known as metabolites, may be detected in the urine of regular users for days or weeks after past use.[17] (Other common illicit substances, such as cocaine or methamphetamine, do not possess such long half-lives.) Therefore, the substance's prevalence in toxicological evaluations of US drivers does not necessarily indicate that it is a frequent or significant causal factor in auto accidents. In fact, states that have experienced a significant increase in the total number of authorized medical cannabis users have in general experienced no proportional corresponding rise in traffic fatalities, and most have experienced a decline in overall fatal accidents.[18]
Cruising On Cannabis: Clarifying The Debate
While it is well established that alcohol consumption increases accident risk, evidence of marijuana's culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is far less clear. Although acute cannabis intoxication following inhalation has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting.[19-20] (By contrast, virtually no published research exists assessing the oral ingestion of cannabis edibles on psychomotor performance). In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana's acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time (break latency), as well as variation in lateral positioning (weaving), headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation).[21] Notably, these impairments in performance are more likely to be manifested in driver simulator tests than in assessments of actual on-road behavior, where changes in performance are consistently nominal.[22] For example, A 2001 study evaluating the impact of marijuana intoxication on driving proficiency on city streets among sixteen subjects reported essentially no differences in subjects' driving performance after cannabis administration, concluding: "Performance as rated on the Driving Proficiency Scale did not differ between treatments. It was concluded that the effects of low doses of THC ... on higher-level driving skills as measured in the present study are minimal."[23] Similarly, a 1993 trial funded by the United States National Highway Traffic Association (NTHSA) evaluated subjects' driving performance after cannabis inhalation in high-density urban traffic. Investigators reported, "Marijuana ... did not significantly change mean driving performance."[24]
In general, cannabis-induced variations in driving behavior, when present, are less consistent or pronounced than the impairments exhibited by subjects under the influence of alcohol.[25] Unlike subjects impaired by alcohol, individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously[26] or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether.[27] Further, numerous studies report that experienced cannabis users develop tolerance to many of the changes in cognitive or psychomotor performance associated with acute cannabis intoxication.[28-30]
Most recently, a 2010 double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 21 heavy cannabis users assessed the impact of alcohol or THC inhalation on measures of perceptual motor control (critical tracking task), dual task processing (divided-attention task), motor inhibition (stop-signal task), and cognition (Tower of London). Authors reported: "Alcohol significantly impaired critical tracking, divided attention, and stop-signal performance. THC generally did not affect task performance." They concluded, "[T]he present study generally confirms that heavy cannabis users develop tolerance to the impairing effects of THC on neurocognitive task performance."[31]
As a result, cannabis-induced variations in performance do not typically appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents when the THC levels present in a driver's blood are low and/or cannabis is not consumed in combination with alcohol.[32-33] For example, a 1993 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the role of drug use in fatal accidents reported, "[T]here is little if any evidence to indicate that drivers who have used marijuana alone are any more likely to cause serious accidents than drug free drivers."[34] A more recent assessment by Blows and colleagues noted that self-reported recent use of cannabis (within three hours of driving) was not significantly associated with car crash injury after investigators controlled for specific cofounders (e.g., seat-belt use, sleepiness, etc.)[35] A 2004 observational case control study published in the journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention reported that only drivers under the influence of alcohol or benzodiazepines experience an increased crash risk compared to drug-free controls. Investigators did observe increased risks – though they were not statistically significant – among drivers using amphetamines, cocaine and opiates, but found, "No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis."[36]
A limited number of more recent studies and reviews have postulated a positive association between presumed recent, dose-dependent cannabis exposure and a gradually increased risk of vehicle accident.[37-39] However, this elevated risk was below the risk associated with drivers who had consumed even small quantities of alcohol.
A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana.[40] A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France reported similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood.[41] In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for higher concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver's operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis.
Following the publication of these papers, various investigators have attempted to associate specific THC blood levels to driver impairment.[42-43] However, there are many reasons why such an association should be interpreted with extreme caution. First, peak THC blood levels following inhalation do not consistently correspond with levels of peak impairment.[44] (In fact, subjects who inhale THC typically ascertain their highest THC blood levels within minutes, well before the drug's impairing effects have reached their peak.) As a result, it is virtually impossible to make inferences regarding a subject's impairment based upon the presence of THC alone in a single sample.[45-46]
Second, cannabis' effect on psychomotor performance varies widely among individual subjects, particularly among those who are cannabis experienced versus those who are naive. As a result of these extreme variations, even experts who are on record in support of estimated blood/THC impairment standards acknowledge that such thresholds "are not necessarily applicable to each and every driver an individual."[47]
Third, recent studies of chronic cannabis consumers indicate that residual levels of THC may be present in blood without associated impairment of performance for several days after past use.[48-49] This accumulation of THC in chronic consumers "leads to cannabinoid concentrations in sober phases that resemble concentrations found in occasional users after acute cannabis use,"[50] thus making the universal application of a specific blood/THC impairment standard inappropriate.
Finally, at this time there is no practical method for law enforcement officers at the scene to collect blood samples from suspected DUI cannabis drivers in a timely manner. This delay in collection (which may typically be as long as several hours), combined with the THC's complex and inconsistent pharmacokinetics, make it impossible to infer whether, or to what extent, a subject was previously impaired based solely on a positive blood test result.[51]
For these reasons, NORML does not endorse the imposition of per se laws for drivers who test positive for THC in the blood without additional demonstrable evidence of psychomotor impairment. In particular, NORML opposes the imposition of so-called 'zero tolerance' per se standards, which legally define a motorist impaired if he or she tests positive for the presence of any amount of THC or THC metabolite in their blood or urine.[52]
Defining A Rational 'Drugged Driving' Policy
To bring this back to the parenting thing....Tho the article is written in the context of driving - the info regarding impairment levels and tolerance for risky behaviour makes it pretty obvious that the histrionics about 'straight eyes' seeing everything, learning how to party and be addicted, child endangerment etc are obviously WAY over the top....This becomes even more obvious when you consider the highlighted info that regular users develop a tolerance to the impairing effects......unless you are willing to condemn that glass of wine in front of your kids, or the anxiety/depression meds you take.
The only difference in my eyes from a parent who has a single glass of wine in the evening, pops an anxiety pill, or fires up a bong, is legality. That is the sole reason an adult MJ user should have to justify his behaviour to a child in any different way than the other two substance users. And in that light, if used 'responsibly' as a means of self-medicating, or for casual recreation (no different than the wine drinker), it is the law itself that is most damaging to the relationship with the child, in that the parent is forced to either be dishonest with the kid, or justify the morality of breaking the law to them. As I said before, I don't think MJ is the ideal way for a parent to cope with stress...but lets be realistic and fair when comparing it to other drugs.
The way things are now, the laws are anything but.
Plus, I've never heard of anyone having to go to the hospital or dying because they smoked too much pot. That alone is definitive proof of what is worse for you health.
I am not sure I can accept that. I mean how is it possible that pretty much every other type of smoke entering your lungs is bad for your health yet pot smoke isn't.
Plus it is worth noting I think that alcohol has saved countless lives. I mean back in the days before people understood the need for clean drinking water people who drank beer or wine has a much better chance of surviving things like cholera outbreaks. It was actually to the point where it was discovered that cholera was carried in contaminated water since in London there was an outbreak centered around a public water pump and a disproportional amount of people who weren't getting sick happened to work at a local brewery.
Fair enough.
With minimal consumption, MJ is probably the most harmful...then potatoes, then wine.
With extreme consumption, intent on OD'ing....your wine test subject would die first...then the potato guy...the MJ guy would probably fall asleep with a helluva headache.
No arguments here. Though I'm going to have to circle back and read the article you linked to understand this poison potato deal.
"The home is a really important source for these kids," said Maldonado-Molina. "(Parents) may not perceive their drinking as negative, but it influences what is acceptable behavior."
The example is set from young on and even can dictate their own parenting skills
for the following generation. It's a cycle that could be broken
but many people are too selfish or too addicted or in too much denial
to give up the pleasure substances....
they may not be harmful to the adult when used in moderation but
we see that is definitely not always the case and the effects on children can be and are
harmful to their future decisions.
"The home is a really important source for these kids," said Maldonado-Molina. "(Parents) may not perceive their drinking as negative, but it influences what is acceptable behavior."
The example is set from young on and even can dictate their own parenting skills
for the following generation. It's a cycle that could be broken
but many people are too selfish or too addicted or in too much denial
to give up the pleasure substances....
they may not be harmful to the adult when used in moderation but
we see that is definitely not always the case and the effects on children can be and are
harmful to their future decisions.
So if we combine this article with the one Drowned Out posted plus your assertion that kids pick up on the things their parents do, assuming all three are correct, we would come up with this conclusion: If you're going to smoke pot or drink around your kids it's better to smoke pot because when they learn that from you they will be less dangerous drivers than if they learn to drink and drive, thus, marijuana is less dangerous under these conditions than alcohol.
Just an exercise in logic.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I have to say that referring to internet links for info on this topic, when some of us are living it every day is quite the farce.
This could be said for any topic actually. Like I said before, parenting is not the issue here. It's about peer pressure.
With all due respect, an individual's personal experience isn't really conclusive evidence of anything. That's why we have the studies in the first place.
That really about wraps it up and says it all, Jeanwah. I'm surprised to see so much discussion around something that seems so abvious- especially among those of us with personal experience with both substances- not to mention the studies, statistics etc. that are out there to confirm this belief.
Except that it doesn't, as I already pointed out above. The problem is that the question is unanswerable without more parameters. In moderation (1-2 glasses of wine a day, for example), it's hardly a "no-brainer" that pot is less dangerous. I'd imagine it would be quite easy to argue the opposite, in fact, considering the health benefits of wine.
"The home is a really important source for these kids," said Maldonado-Molina. "(Parents) may not perceive their drinking as negative, but it influences what is acceptable behavior."
The example is set from young on and even can dictate their own parenting skills
for the following generation. It's a cycle that could be broken
but many people are too selfish or too addicted or in too much denial
to give up the pleasure substances....
they may not be harmful to the adult when used in moderation but
we see that is definitely not always the case and the effects on children can be and are
harmful to their future decisions.
So if we combine this article with the one Drowned Out posted plus your assertion that kids pick up on the things their parents do, assuming all three are correct, we would come up with this conclusion: If you're going to smoke pot or drink around your kids it's better to smoke pot because when they learn that from you they will be less dangerous drivers than if they learn to drink and drive, thus, marijuana is less dangerous under these conditions than alcohol.
Just an exercise in logic.
Pot is illegal... many kids get into the system by smoking underage...
every parents dream... wait nightmare.
Probation, drug testing, weekend jail, loss of license...
how about we just teach kids not to smoke and drink....
novel idea :fp:
If adults really cared about kids they would do this, set an example, set the very best
example for their children.
I have to say that referring to internet links for info on this topic, when some of us are living it every day is quite the farce.
This could be said for any topic actually. Like I said before, parenting is not the issue here. It's about peer pressure.
Yeah, all kidding aside, it really is. I knew a girl who became a fifteen year old alcoholic because she was a PK (preacher's kid) whose parents never touched a drop and wanted to be cool around her friends. And I knew a kid who died in a car crash because he and a friend were drinking and driving and his mother was an absolute fundamentalist Christian teetotaler.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Pot is illegal... many kids get into the system by smoking underage...
every parents dream... wait nightmare.
Probation, drug testing, weekend jail, loss of license...
how about we just teach kids not to smoke and drink....
novel idea :fp:
If adults really cared about kids they would do this, set an example, set the very best
example for their children.
You don't get it. Kids do what their friends do, not their parents. And pot being illegal is one of the stupidist laws out there. It's a natural plant.
The peers who are using first are those who learned at home.
Comments
I'm all for setting a good example. It's part of why I don't smoke and only drink on occasion, but there really is a biological basis to addiction. That's why some people can party all through school and then leave it behind and others can't. My entire family smokes (cigarettes) yet I never have. My friends parents smoke marijuana regularly and he never did. Parental example is important, but I'd say peers and biology are bigger factors.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Honest question -- is there any scientific evidence that indicates that a child who grows up in a home where alcohol is used responsibly has less of a chance of alcohol abuse later than a child who grew up with teetotalers?
Most of us here are talking 'moderation', not binge drinking, passing out drinking, being completely out of your head - maybe even going on to hard drugs.
Moderation is the word.
I see a real difference between France, where kids are 'introduced' to alcohol (eg a little bit of wine, etc.) in the home and, for example, the US or the UK. Less binge drinking, feeling one 'needs' to go out and get drunk...
But this is just observation. I'm sure there is proper research out there.
With minimal consumption, MJ is probably the most harmful...then potatoes, then wine.
With extreme consumption, intent on OD'ing....your wine test subject would die first...then the potato guy...the MJ guy would probably fall asleep with a helluva headache.
Not a study but an article with references to further reading on the subject.
http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020883.html
There is a train of thoughts (well.. more than thoughts) that argue all addictions (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.) are based on biology (genes) but in order for these genetic factors to develop, it requires the right environmental conditions as well (could include lifestyle, exposure to the addiction via 'familiars' and how one reacts to these). So, whilst your mother or father could have passed on the 'gene', it may not manifest itself for you or for several generations if the conditions aren't 'right'. I know there is a lot of literature about this if one wishes to check it out.
(now, if the average person moderately used a vaporizer instead of moderately smoking, that would probably be up for debate)
Ask any teenager why they started smoking pot or drinking booze and 10 to 1 odds they will tell you that their friends were into it, so they got interested. This should not be about parenting because teens don't look at what their parents do and think, "God, I want to be cool like my parents". :roll: I'm around teens every day and they clearly don't want to be around their parents, let alone be influenced by them.
Oh, and it's a no brainer that alcohol is worse for your health than weed.
I don't have any articles specific to your question on hand. My area of focus is on trauma, so most of the research I have stored relates to that. I'm sure there is research that addresses your question though. You could try the American Journal on Addictions, the Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, or the Journal of Addiction Medicine - they should all have scholarly articles that are peer reviewed.
Pj_Soul is correct that it does run in families - usually a genetic predisposition triggered by environmental factors. Here are 2 anecdotal situations. My older brother was adopted as a baby. His biological parents both had addictions (cocaine and alcohol I believe). He, my younger brother and I all grew up in the same home. He developed a polysubstance addiction, my younger brother and I only drink alcohol on occasion. While my parents didn't drink or use drugs (other than cigarettes), there were definitely other environmental factors that were unhealthy and could have contributed to his development of an addiction. I wonder if he had made different friends, or had a different way of coping with stress or had a different support available to him if he would have gone on to have an addiction. My best friend's sister was also adopted as a baby. Their parents never drank or smoked at all. My friend does not drink at all, but her sister is also addicted to numerous drugs. I've seen countless other examples of it happening in the opposite direction (parents used heavily and kid never develops and addiction) It's interesting stuff.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Count me in. I hated the taste of both alcohol and cigarettes when I first tried them. But, I got used to them. I first drank alcohol (beer) at parties... then, switched to crap wine (Boone's Farm, Annie Greenspring) because it tasted more like Kool-aid... then, Sloe Gin or Tequila mixed with 7-Up or Orange juice.
I didn't try pot til I got out of high school.
Alcohol was my gateway.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree it comes down your peers that you hang out with as a youth or an adult. I don't care for alcohol at all, my few experiences with drinking have not been pretty so I don't drink very much. I mean i keep a botlle of Jamaican Overproof White Rum and i keep it not to drink but to help when anyone of us in our home gets sick from a cold. BTW my recipe works especially with the kids.
I have a drink maybe once or twice a month and I DO know my limits. I like to go dancing at the club and I'll be the only there drinking cranberry juice with nothing in it.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
That really about wraps it up and says it all, Jeanwah. I'm surprised to see so much discussion around something that seems so abvious- especially among those of us with personal experience with both substances- not to mention the studies, statistics etc. that are out there to confirm this belief.
Sounds like a familiar story to me too. And I want to hear more about the stadium full of stoned Raiders fans. That sounds very interesting to me.
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review
By Paul Armentano
September 12, 2011
Cannabis and Driving
Policy debates regarding marijuana law reform invariably raise the question: "How does society address concerns regarding cannabis consumption and driving?" The subject is worthy of serious discussion. NORML's Board of Directors addressed this issue by ratifying a "no driving" clause to the organization's "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use"[1] stating, "Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer with motorists than alcohol and many prescription drugs, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition."
Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the degree to which cannabis intoxication impairs actual driving performance. Unlike alcohol, which is known to increase drivers' risk-taking behavior and is a primary contributor in on-road accidents, marijuana's acute impact on psychomotor skills is subtle and its real-world impact in automobile crashes is inconclusive.
Drugged Driving: True Threat Or False Panic?
Survey data indicates that approximately 112 million Americans (46 percent of the US population) have experimented with the use of illicit substances.[2] Of these, more than 20 million (8.3 percent of the population) self-identify as "current" or "monthly" users of illicit drugs,[3] and more than 10 million Americans say that they've operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of an illicit substance in the past year.[4] These totals, while far from negligible, suggest that the prevalence of illicit drug use among US drivers is far less than the prevalence of alcohol among this same population.[5]
To date, "[The] role of [illicit] drugs as a causal factor in traffic crashes involving drug-positive drivers is still not well understood."[6] While some studies have indicated that illicit drug use is associated with an increased risk of accident, a relationship has not yet been clearly established regarding the use of psychoactive substances and crash severity.[7] Some reviews of traffic fatality data indicate that, in general, drivers with the presence of illicit drugs in their system possess an enhanced fatality risk compared to sober drivers. However, this risk is far lower than the fatality risk associated with drivers who operate a vehicle with the presence of alcohol in their system above or near the legal limit for intoxication.[8] According to one review of the literature: "The risk of all drug-positive drivers compared to drug-free drivers is similar to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The risk is also similar to drivers above age 60 compared to younger drivers [around age 35]."[9]
Marijuana is the most common illicit substance consumed by persons who report driving after drug use.[10] Epidemiological research also indicates that cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug detected in fatally injured drivers and motor vehicle crash victims.[11] Reasons for this fact are twofold. One, cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug among the US population, with nearly one out of two Americans admitting having tried it.[12] Two, marijuana is the most readily detectable illicit drug in toxicological tests. Marijuana's primary psychoactive compound, THC, may accumulate and be detected in blood for several hours in occasional users; in some chronic users, THC may be present in blood for a period of days after past use,[13-15] long after any performance impairing effects have worn off.[16] In addition, non-psychoactive byproducts of cannabis, known as metabolites, may be detected in the urine of regular users for days or weeks after past use.[17] (Other common illicit substances, such as cocaine or methamphetamine, do not possess such long half-lives.) Therefore, the substance's prevalence in toxicological evaluations of US drivers does not necessarily indicate that it is a frequent or significant causal factor in auto accidents. In fact, states that have experienced a significant increase in the total number of authorized medical cannabis users have in general experienced no proportional corresponding rise in traffic fatalities, and most have experienced a decline in overall fatal accidents.[18]
Cruising On Cannabis: Clarifying The Debate
While it is well established that alcohol consumption increases accident risk, evidence of marijuana's culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is far less clear. Although acute cannabis intoxication following inhalation has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment is seldom severe or long lasting.[19-20] (By contrast, virtually no published research exists assessing the oral ingestion of cannabis edibles on psychomotor performance). In closed course and driving simulator studies, marijuana's acute effects on psychomotor performance include minor impairments in tracking (eye movement control) and reaction time (break latency), as well as variation in lateral positioning (weaving), headway (drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them), and speed (drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation).[21] Notably, these impairments in performance are more likely to be manifested in driver simulator tests than in assessments of actual on-road behavior, where changes in performance are consistently nominal.[22] For example, A 2001 study evaluating the impact of marijuana intoxication on driving proficiency on city streets among sixteen subjects reported essentially no differences in subjects' driving performance after cannabis administration, concluding: "Performance as rated on the Driving Proficiency Scale did not differ between treatments. It was concluded that the effects of low doses of THC ... on higher-level driving skills as measured in the present study are minimal."[23] Similarly, a 1993 trial funded by the United States National Highway Traffic Association (NTHSA) evaluated subjects' driving performance after cannabis inhalation in high-density urban traffic. Investigators reported, "Marijuana ... did not significantly change mean driving performance."[24]
In general, cannabis-induced variations in driving behavior, when present, are less consistent or pronounced than the impairments exhibited by subjects under the influence of alcohol.[25] Unlike subjects impaired by alcohol, individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously[26] or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether.[27] Further, numerous studies report that experienced cannabis users develop tolerance to many of the changes in cognitive or psychomotor performance associated with acute cannabis intoxication.[28-30]
Most recently, a 2010 double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 21 heavy cannabis users assessed the impact of alcohol or THC inhalation on measures of perceptual motor control (critical tracking task), dual task processing (divided-attention task), motor inhibition (stop-signal task), and cognition (Tower of London). Authors reported: "Alcohol significantly impaired critical tracking, divided attention, and stop-signal performance. THC generally did not affect task performance." They concluded, "[T]he present study generally confirms that heavy cannabis users develop tolerance to the impairing effects of THC on neurocognitive task performance."[31]
As a result, cannabis-induced variations in performance do not typically appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents when the THC levels present in a driver's blood are low and/or cannabis is not consumed in combination with alcohol.[32-33] For example, a 1993 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the role of drug use in fatal accidents reported, "[T]here is little if any evidence to indicate that drivers who have used marijuana alone are any more likely to cause serious accidents than drug free drivers."[34] A more recent assessment by Blows and colleagues noted that self-reported recent use of cannabis (within three hours of driving) was not significantly associated with car crash injury after investigators controlled for specific cofounders (e.g., seat-belt use, sleepiness, etc.)[35] A 2004 observational case control study published in the journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention reported that only drivers under the influence of alcohol or benzodiazepines experience an increased crash risk compared to drug-free controls. Investigators did observe increased risks – though they were not statistically significant – among drivers using amphetamines, cocaine and opiates, but found, "No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis."[36]
A limited number of more recent studies and reviews have postulated a positive association between presumed recent, dose-dependent cannabis exposure and a gradually increased risk of vehicle accident.[37-39] However, this elevated risk was below the risk associated with drivers who had consumed even small quantities of alcohol.
A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana.[40] A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France reported similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood.[41] In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for higher concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver's operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis.
Following the publication of these papers, various investigators have attempted to associate specific THC blood levels to driver impairment.[42-43] However, there are many reasons why such an association should be interpreted with extreme caution. First, peak THC blood levels following inhalation do not consistently correspond with levels of peak impairment.[44] (In fact, subjects who inhale THC typically ascertain their highest THC blood levels within minutes, well before the drug's impairing effects have reached their peak.) As a result, it is virtually impossible to make inferences regarding a subject's impairment based upon the presence of THC alone in a single sample.[45-46]
Second, cannabis' effect on psychomotor performance varies widely among individual subjects, particularly among those who are cannabis experienced versus those who are naive. As a result of these extreme variations, even experts who are on record in support of estimated blood/THC impairment standards acknowledge that such thresholds "are not necessarily applicable to each and every driver an individual."[47]
Third, recent studies of chronic cannabis consumers indicate that residual levels of THC may be present in blood without associated impairment of performance for several days after past use.[48-49] This accumulation of THC in chronic consumers "leads to cannabinoid concentrations in sober phases that resemble concentrations found in occasional users after acute cannabis use,"[50] thus making the universal application of a specific blood/THC impairment standard inappropriate.
Finally, at this time there is no practical method for law enforcement officers at the scene to collect blood samples from suspected DUI cannabis drivers in a timely manner. This delay in collection (which may typically be as long as several hours), combined with the THC's complex and inconsistent pharmacokinetics, make it impossible to infer whether, or to what extent, a subject was previously impaired based solely on a positive blood test result.[51]
For these reasons, NORML does not endorse the imposition of per se laws for drivers who test positive for THC in the blood without additional demonstrable evidence of psychomotor impairment. In particular, NORML opposes the imposition of so-called 'zero tolerance' per se standards, which legally define a motorist impaired if he or she tests positive for the presence of any amount of THC or THC metabolite in their blood or urine.[52]
Defining A Rational 'Drugged Driving' Policy
More: http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis- ... -review#21
....................................................................................................
To bring this back to the parenting thing....Tho the article is written in the context of driving - the info regarding impairment levels and tolerance for risky behaviour makes it pretty obvious that the histrionics about 'straight eyes' seeing everything, learning how to party and be addicted, child endangerment etc are obviously WAY over the top....This becomes even more obvious when you consider the highlighted info that regular users develop a tolerance to the impairing effects......unless you are willing to condemn that glass of wine in front of your kids, or the anxiety/depression meds you take.
The only difference in my eyes from a parent who has a single glass of wine in the evening, pops an anxiety pill, or fires up a bong, is legality. That is the sole reason an adult MJ user should have to justify his behaviour to a child in any different way than the other two substance users. And in that light, if used 'responsibly' as a means of self-medicating, or for casual recreation (no different than the wine drinker), it is the law itself that is most damaging to the relationship with the child, in that the parent is forced to either be dishonest with the kid, or justify the morality of breaking the law to them. As I said before, I don't think MJ is the ideal way for a parent to cope with stress...but lets be realistic and fair when comparing it to other drugs.
The way things are now, the laws are anything but.
I am not sure I can accept that. I mean how is it possible that pretty much every other type of smoke entering your lungs is bad for your health yet pot smoke isn't.
Plus it is worth noting I think that alcohol has saved countless lives. I mean back in the days before people understood the need for clean drinking water people who drank beer or wine has a much better chance of surviving things like cholera outbreaks. It was actually to the point where it was discovered that cholera was carried in contaminated water since in London there was an outbreak centered around a public water pump and a disproportional amount of people who weren't getting sick happened to work at a local brewery.
http://www.livescience.com/16020-parent ... drive.html
"The home is a really important source for these kids," said Maldonado-Molina. "(Parents) may not perceive their drinking as negative, but it influences what is acceptable behavior."
The example is set from young on and even can dictate their own parenting skills
for the following generation. It's a cycle that could be broken
but many people are too selfish or too addicted or in too much denial
to give up the pleasure substances....
they may not be harmful to the adult when used in moderation but
we see that is definitely not always the case and the effects on children can be and are
harmful to their future decisions.
So if we combine this article with the one Drowned Out posted plus your assertion that kids pick up on the things their parents do, assuming all three are correct, we would come up with this conclusion: If you're going to smoke pot or drink around your kids it's better to smoke pot because when they learn that from you they will be less dangerous drivers than if they learn to drink and drive, thus, marijuana is less dangerous under these conditions than alcohol.
Just an exercise in logic.
This could be said for any topic actually. Like I said before, parenting is not the issue here. It's about peer pressure.
Except that it doesn't, as I already pointed out above. The problem is that the question is unanswerable without more parameters. In moderation (1-2 glasses of wine a day, for example), it's hardly a "no-brainer" that pot is less dangerous. I'd imagine it would be quite easy to argue the opposite, in fact, considering the health benefits of wine.
every parents dream... wait nightmare.
Probation, drug testing, weekend jail, loss of license...
how about we just teach kids not to smoke and drink....
novel idea :fp:
If adults really cared about kids they would do this, set an example, set the very best
example for their children.
And who is not living it? I lived through it all...
and then some!
The farce is blaming your child's decisions on another child. Yes peer pressure is huge
so empower your child.
Yeah, all kidding aside, it really is. I knew a girl who became a fifteen year old alcoholic because she was a PK (preacher's kid) whose parents never touched a drop and wanted to be cool around her friends. And I knew a kid who died in a car crash because he and a friend were drinking and driving and his mother was an absolute fundamentalist Christian teetotaler.
You don't get it. Kids do what their friends do, not their parents. And pot being illegal is one of the stupidist laws out there. It's a natural plant.
This couldn't be more wrong. :roll: