Marijuana and creativity. Does pot induce deep thinking?

[iGas]

Marijuana and creativity. Does pot induce deep thinking?

Every scientist, and engineers would use it if it did.

 

[Drako]

Every scientist, and engineers would use it if it did.

Pretty much this.

Speaking from 30+ years of experience. Not that imbibing occasionally is a bad thing, but it certainly does not induce deep thinking

 

[dank69]

Looks like we need a war on alcohol and tobacco too.

That graph is suspect. E is barely more harmful than weed? Cocaine is way more harmful than E? Shens.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you have any personal experience with illicit substances?

Some yes.

And lots of reading on http://www.erowid.org/ of outcomes/effects.

Care to explain why?

Here are a few problems which you can confirm by going to the above web-page.

The "physical harm" axis is way off. First: there is LD50 harm (over dose) and then there is long-term-use harm (chances of cancer etc).

Heroin is easy to over dose on, but leads to few long-term problems physiologically if administered properly.

Cocaine is similar, except that it can bring out hear-palpitations in some and kill them instantly/in the long run

Tobacco has very bad long-term health consequences and unless eaten is highly unlikely to get you to LD50.

Alcohol, on the other hand, has mildly bad long-term consequences if abused and is more likely than tobacco to get you to LD50 (or run-into-someone-while-driving 50).

Steroids are a controversy I don't want to touch; but the people I see talking about cycling are the same ones with tiny testicular-size horrible pimples and big-fat-ugly steroid jaws. Long term impact even if used properly? not sure what they are, but I don't think anyone uses them properly.

Solvents will literally destroy your brain: both easy to LD50 and easy to cause long-term harm.

Cannabis has an under-stated harm, probably for political reasons. The non-cancer smoking outcomes are worse for cannabis, though even eating it, it is very very hard to LD50.

LSD is WAY over stated for harm. the LD50 for LSD has never been established. The long-term physiological harm has never been established. You may be a nutter, but you'll not have physical-health-consequences.

Ecstasy causes long-term irreparable damage to the serotonin emitters in the brain* and has the same ld50 as meth: though the long-term use will not be likely because your mind has to re-build its supply of serotonin; further over-dose is of low likely-hood unless you attempt it.

*this is caused by oxidization which has been mitigated (though not eliminated) in laboratory rats through the mass-consumption of anti-oxidants

 

[bfdd]

some people think so, isn't that enough?

 

[Rifter]

Ill chime in on this.

I've smoked multiple times a week for years, about 9 years. I waited till i was 22 to start though so it didnt effect my time in school/college or development of my body. Sometimes it does indeed induce some pretty deep thoughts and most of the deep discussions i have had with friends over the years have been while smoking, usualy while camping around a campfire in the middle of nowhere, some also involved mushrooms which IMO is better for inducing deep thoughts.

Mostly nowadays i just use pot as a sleep aid, i work nights and sleep days so smoking a hour before bed makes it alot easier to get to sleep and stay asleep while everyone in my apartment building is making noise getting ready for work. Then on my days off depending on what im doing i might smoke with some friends or just smoke and play some vids.

Bottom line though is it effects everyone in different ways so its not going to induce deep thoughts in every stoner but there is no doubt in my mind that it does help some people with creativity.

 

[Nebbers]

Some yes.

And lots of reading on http://www.erowid.org/ of outcomes/effects.


Here are a few problems which you can confirm by going to the above web-page.

The "physical harm" axis is way off. First: there is LD50 harm (over dose) and then there is long-term-use harm (chances of cancer etc).

Heroin is easy to over dose on, but leads to few long-term problems physiologically if administered properly.

Cocaine is similar, except that it can bring out hear-palpitations in some and kill them instantly/in the long run

Tobacco has very bad long-term health consequences and unless eaten is highly unlikely to get you to LD50.

Alcohol, on the other hand, has mildly bad long-term consequences if abused and is more likely than tobacco to get you to LD50 (or run-into-someone-while-driving 50).

Steroids are a controversy I don't want to touch; but the people I see talking about cycling are the same ones with tiny testicular-size horrible pimples and big-fat-ugly steroid jaws. Long term impact even if used properly? not sure what they are, but I don't think anyone uses them properly.

Solvents will literally destroy your brain: both easy to LD50 and easy to cause long-term harm.

Cannabis has an under-stated harm, probably for political reasons. The non-cancer smoking outcomes are worse for cannabis, though even eating it, it is very very hard to LD50.

LSD is WAY over stated for harm. the LD50 for LSD has never been established. The long-term physiological harm has never been established. You may be a nutter, but you'll not have physical-health-consequences.

Ecstasy causes long-term irreparable damage to the serotonin emitters in the brain* and has the same ld50 as meth: though the long-term use will not be likely because your mind has to re-build its supply of serotonin; further over-dose is of low likely-hood unless you attempt it.

*this is caused by oxidization which has been mitigated (though not eliminated) in laboratory rats through the mass-consumption of anti-oxidants

Maybe it's just the phrasing, but I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Can you clarify?

As for the rest, good post. I really hadn't looked and thought too hard at this graph and it's definitely off on a number of things. Solvents in particular should be way the fuck more to the right, wtf.

 

[SlitheryDee]

That graph is suspect. E is barely more harmful than weed? Cocaine is way more harmful than E? Shens.

I wouldn't be so sure. E has been subjected to a great deal of study lately. Most of which has determined that it is far less harmful than previously assumed. I think that its usually the other drugs and chemicals that manufacturers like to mix with MDMA that cause danger more than anything else.

 

[Nebbers]

I wouldn't be so sure. E has been subjected to a great deal of study lately. Most of which has determined that it is far less harmful than previously assumed. I think that its usually the other drugs and chemicals that manufacturers like to mix with MDMA that cause danger more than anything else.

Just another one of the wonderful benefits of drug prohibition.

 

[slackerinabox]

Every scientist, and engineers would use it if it did.

Every musician does use it