171–180 of 244 posts
Old man joint pains. Not headaches, broken bones, etc. But it nearly erases achy joint pain for me.
Being angry. I am much less angry in general when I'm smoking a bit every couple of days. That said, when I take a break I feel like my testosterone goes through the roof. I get more irritable and, TMI, I get a lot more spontaneous boners.
This is a hard topic to communicate in depression treatment. It's easy to mistake substances that temporarily boost your mood or calm your nerves for effective treatments for an underlying condition. There was a brief period of time before the opioid prescribing backlash when some fringe psychiatrists were proposing weaker opioids as adjunctive treatments for treatment resistant depression. It's hard to fathom now, b…
> but remember there was a period of time where many seemingly forgot about their addictive properties. There was also quite alot of talk about how doctors, by being reticent to prescribe opioids, were inhumanely forcing patients to live in pain, and not being sufficiently deferential to patient autonomy. Moreover, the rhetoric was incorporated into discussions about racist disparities in treatment, given there was s…
As a middle aged guy who has used pot on and off for decades and no longer really enjoys the high, I'll say weed is good for two things: Old man joint pains. Not headaches, broken bones, etc. But it nearly erases achy joint pain for me. Being angry. I am much less angry in general when I'm smoking a bit every couple of days. That said, when I take a break I feel like my testosterone goes through the roof. I get more…
I also had debilitating anger in my teens and weed really helped calm that down. I’ve been off it for years at a time and I still can’t get past my anger without it.
That said my memory is shit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but remember there was a period of time where many seemingly forgot about their addictive properties. There was also quite alot of talk about how doctors, by being reticent to prescribe opioids, were inhumanely forcing patients to live in pain, and not being sufficiently deferential to patient autonomy. Moreover, the rhetoric was incorporated into discussions about racist disparities in treatment, given there was s…
As an aside, it is a well established fact that doctors, as a whole, take the the pain of black people much less seriously than the pain of non-black people.
Does this finding hold across different nations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you take it and you feel your anxiety is lessened, that's the greatest proof you can ask for. This mistake has been made many time throughout history. Cocaine was originally believed to be a viable treatment for depression. Opioids and amphetamines too. You take them and you feel good for a while, which was mistakenly equated with treating depression. Many drugs will make you feel good temporarily by blocking ce…
Alcohol too. It's not a cure. It's a high.
Are all psych meds just "a high"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you take it and you feel your anxiety is lessened, that's the greatest proof you can ask for. This mistake has been made many time throughout history. Cocaine was originally believed to be a viable treatment for depression. Opioids and amphetamines too. You take them and you feel good for a while, which was mistakenly equated with treating depression. Many drugs will make you feel good temporarily by blocking ce…
I mean, aren't they effective treatments? As someone who has had depression literally as long as I can remember, being able to releve my symptoms when I really need it, even for just an hour, would be life changing.
It reduces suffering in the moment, which is sometimes the entire goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone genuinely familiar with the scientific publishing process probably holds the most skepticism around publications Healthy skepticism is a good idea The silly notion that being published means it should be dismissed or that we should assume the opposite is true is not healthy though. > The above view is independent of the current article. But it's embarrassing to see people praise the heck out of publications…
> I specifically said that not everything published in a journal is true! Yes, but the undertone of your message was towards them being generally good and useful. Which my post disagrees with. This view hardens with every new year. The entirety of your comment just now is predicated on this one point, which is treating your words at face value, rather than their implication. To act like I didn't understand your words…
Research published in journals like The Lancet is generally useful. I don't agree that it's reasonable to dismiss everything published like that. What are you even left with at that point, other than knee-jerk contrarian takes?
American media has really been shockingly pro weed/cannabis for the past 20 or so years. Really astounding to witness considering the well known downsides to human health and cognitive function. Main characters smoke weed as a cool disobedience, in sitcoms even. Wonder what is behind it, from my perspective it's quite remarkable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not smoking 10 strains in a row I never said it was. I was saying you could run 10 different studies on 10 different strains with 10 different "entourage effect" profiles and even if all of them were negative, they would be dismissed as not having precisely the right entourage effect. If there are anti-depressant compounds in cannabis plants then they can be extracted and isolated, too. > So the correct way to…
Why would you not have to try each and every combination of features known to create a different effect on the outcome? There are what, 500 different psycho-active chemicals in cannabis? And how many different kinds of neuro-chemicals can our brains create in synapses? And how do we even begin to organize the ways that that information is transmitted to the structure (topology) of the neural systems? And their firing…
I think you're extrapolating from exaggerated factoids. There are only a small number of compounds in cannabis that exist at the intersection of:
- Present in high enough quantities to matter
- Not destroyed during smoking/vaping/processing
- Bioavailable enough to enter the bloodstream
- With the correct chemical structure to penetrate the blood-brain barrier
- Potent enough to elicit effects at the concentrations achieved in human consumption
There are not 500 compounds in cannabis that fit this criteria. The number is much smaller.
If there was some combination that achieved dramatic antidepressant effects where typical cannabis failed, don't you think someone would have noticed by now?
There's no reason to assume that some combination of 500 different variables exists to do something that we haven't observed yet. There are much more fruitful paths to research than endlessly researching every variation of cannabis for the sake of researching cannabis.