Scientific reasoning

[Oppositional P]

Ten years ago, the popular belief was that caffeine didn't act on any specific neurotransmitter or receptor site. The popular belief was that caffeine acted by increasing the permeability of calcium on the intracellular level.

Fortunately science is not set in stone, so when new evidence presented itself the popular belief changed. It is now believed that caffeine acts mainly through its structural similarity to adenosine, but in another ten years that could go out the window also. This is what makes science cool.


To the mods:Here comes the part I'm going to get flamed for. I can handle it and without resorting to name-calling. PLEASE don't close this thread.


The popular belief of our time is that marijuana is not physically addictive (although some experts disagree, saying that it can be mildy physically addictive). This doesn't make it undeniable fact. To say it's completely impossible for everyone would be like saying there's no life on other planets because scientists haven't found it yet.

I made the coment that nothing can be proven. That was meant to be interpreted loosely, plus I was totally shitfaced. I was getting at what I've explained here, but I couldn't argue intelligently at the time because I was hammered.

I am not a moron, and I have not been sent here by the DEA to spread lies or piss off stoners. I have never been banned from this message board under a different name.

Oppositional P Reviewed by Oppositional P on 05-10-2007. Scientific reasoning Ten years ago, the popular belief was that caffeine didn't act on any specific neurotransmitter or receptor site. The popular belief was that caffeine acted by increasing the permeability of calcium on the intracellular level. Fortunately science is not set in stone, so when new evidence presented itself the popular belief changed. It is now believed that caffeine acts mainly through its structural similarity to adenosine, but in another ten years that could go out the window also. This is Rating: 5

[JaggedEdge]

Very well said, I won't argue against possible future findings, but based on the info we currently have, I still would have to go with it not being addictive.

Even if new findings were to be released, I don't think many would suffer from an addiction to cannabis, as it doesn't appear many are addicted. As stated before most of those in drug rehab for cannabis is at the order of the court.

[smoke it]

imo,,, all we can use to say what is right and wrong is the current information we have. hell, who knows. in 10 years, some discovery might prove that crack is good for you. we will never know everything and thats how it is.

[Staurm]

I beleive you. Whatever you can say at the time, say it if you think it's interesting. Structure and form from part of the basises of life.

[Oppositional P]

imo,,, all we can use to say what is right and wrong is the current information we have. hell, who knows. in 10 years, some discovery might prove that crack is good for you. we will never know everything and thats how it is.

Benjamin Franklin said nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Why am I not getting flamed? What happened people thinking with their glands?

[BabyFacedAbortion]

I disagree that marijuana isn't addictive. I agree that it can become physically addictive. I think that once your body gets a certian thing for a certian amount of times a day for a certian amount of years, that when you stop giving your body that specific thing..it kind of spazzes out..i.e headaches, stomach aches, ect.

I don't think it's like crack though, or any seriously hard drug in the sense that you literally go thru vomitting, shakes, cold sweats, ect. which is why you'll often see me saying "Weed is not crack." when little shits go about posting "omggg i'm sooo dry ommgg i'm freaking out.."

I agree with you though, science is a nutty thing.

[slipknotpsycho]

Benjamin Franklin said nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Why am I not getting flamed? What happened people thinking with their glands?

like i said in the last thread, your choice of wordings was the eventual downfall... and you're right, science is always proving old 'scientific proof' to be only half right, or even completely wrong. as someone said tho, with current evidence a logical person is left to conclude it is not addictive, and those who exempt 'addiction attributes' are in fact, just weak-willed people.

[Staurm]

It's not a question of whether it's addictive, it's whether or not it's harmful that is important.

[Matt the Funk]

whatever.

[ericwt]

Don't worry I am sure you will get flamed soon enough.

Whatever science says, I can only look in my life and say it is not a physical addition.

When I stop to take a break I admit, I do want it, and do think about it.

However I do not have withdrawal symptoms. I do not get sick or start shaking. I do not get headaches.

So even if science does say one day that it is physically addicting, I know that is complete BS.

Some people are weak willed. That is just the way they are.
They should not smoke pot or drink.

What science says doe not change what I know to be true.

If you cant handle weed- Don't smoke it!