2 ms·

> You are not a biologist, a medical practitioner, or a chemist. I don't need to be any of those things to follow common sense or ... WebMD [1]. [1] https://w

> You are not a biologist, a medical practitioner, or a chemist. I don't need to be any of those things to follow common sense or ... WebMD [1]. [1] https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/how-avoid-high-tolerance-cannabis https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/how-avoid-high...

quesera 2y ago
You keep reestablishing that you have no idea what you're talking about. And that WebMD article doesn't even support your argument. If you're actually curious about how this works, I'd be happy to explain. But you've previously asserted that you don't care what anyone says, so I'm loathe to extend myself. For any other readers, the keywords are "metabolism" and "metabolite".
- imoverclocked 2y ago
  Intellectually disingenuous is coming to mind while reading your responses. Anyway, the fact is that the article explicitly states: > In one study, peoples’ CB1R receptor density returned to normal levels after about 4 weeks of not using marijuana. The study showed how your brain uses the CB1R receptors to increase your cannabis tolerance. That would be a difference that takes 4 weeks to normalize away from. Go ahead and explain how it's not; I enjoy watching mental gymnastics. Another whole set of articles (go ahead and search for "long-term effects of THC use" and don't ignore things that simply go against your world-view) mention many unknowns and open questions with evidence to suggest long-term effects including psychological effects. Heck, even TFA talks about long-term issues with non-metabolites increasing the risk of certain kinds of cancer. BTW, cancer is fatal without treatment which really puts a damper on one's cognitive abilities. :)
  - quesera 2y ago
    You said: > I don't care what anyone says, if it's in your system for that long, it's affecting you (somehow) for that long. My disagreement is that the drug is not in your system for that length of time. It may cause a change of physiology that takes hours or days or weeks to revert to the mean, but the drug is long gone. The metabolites are detectable, but metabolites are not the drug, they are not psychoactive, and they are not affecting you in any known (or speculated) way. You don't know what you're talking about here, and I apologize for being so blunt, but you are spreading misinformation in your "I don't care what anyone says". This is tantamount to "I'm not a scientist, but..." and it's toxic. One not-blatantly-incorrect version of your (I think) intended statement would be "heavy users of the drug may have effects which linger for a few weeks". OK. But not what you said, at all. More you: > Of course the stuff affects you in ways that are not good. Everything on the planet has side-effects. This is a non-statement, but it sets up your entire premise. You are not engaging with facts, but you're repeating vague assertions of belief. This is a waste of everyone's time. That said, my original response was low-quality and evidence of the "defensiveness" mentioned in the thread origin. TBH I have no interest in cannabis. But I intensely dislike the lazy propagation of bad information.

quesera 2y ago

You keep reestablishing that you have no idea what you're talking about. And that WebMD article doesn't even support your argument. If you're actually curious about how this works, I'd be happy to explain. But you've previously asserted that you don't care what anyone says, so I'm loathe to extend myself. For any other readers, the keywords are "metabolism" and "metabolite".

imoverclocked 2y ago
Intellectually disingenuous is coming to mind while reading your responses. Anyway, the fact is that the article explicitly states: > In one study, peoples’ CB1R receptor density returned to normal levels after about 4 weeks of not using marijuana. The study showed how your brain uses the CB1R receptors to increase your cannabis tolerance. That would be a difference that takes 4 weeks to normalize away from. Go ahead and explain how it's not; I enjoy watching mental gymnastics. Another whole set of articles (go ahead and search for "long-term effects of THC use" and don't ignore things that simply go against your world-view) mention many unknowns and open questions with evidence to suggest long-term effects including psychological effects. Heck, even TFA talks about long-term issues with non-metabolites increasing the risk of certain kinds of cancer. BTW, cancer is fatal without treatment which really puts a damper on one's cognitive abilities. :)
- quesera 2y ago
  You said: > I don't care what anyone says, if it's in your system for that long, it's affecting you (somehow) for that long. My disagreement is that the drug is not in your system for that length of time. It may cause a change of physiology that takes hours or days or weeks to revert to the mean, but the drug is long gone. The metabolites are detectable, but metabolites are not the drug, they are not psychoactive, and they are not affecting you in any known (or speculated) way. You don't know what you're talking about here, and I apologize for being so blunt, but you are spreading misinformation in your "I don't care what anyone says". This is tantamount to "I'm not a scientist, but..." and it's toxic. One not-blatantly-incorrect version of your (I think) intended statement would be "heavy users of the drug may have effects which linger for a few weeks". OK. But not what you said, at all. More you: > Of course the stuff affects you in ways that are not good. Everything on the planet has side-effects. This is a non-statement, but it sets up your entire premise. You are not engaging with facts, but you're repeating vague assertions of belief. This is a waste of everyone's time. That said, my original response was low-quality and evidence of the "defensiveness" mentioned in the thread origin. TBH I have no interest in cannabis. But I intensely dislike the lazy propagation of bad information.