• This area is a closed archive from PF2 which did not abide by the same quality standards as the current main community.

Is it a Central Nervous System Stimulant or Depressant?

In summary, the classification of substances as central nervous system (CNS) stimulants or depressants depends on their effects on brain activity and physiological functions. Stimulants, such as caffeine and amphetamines, increase alertness, energy, and focus by enhancing neurotransmitter activity. In contrast, depressants, including alcohol and benzodiazepines, slow down brain function, leading to relaxation and sedation. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for recognizing how different substances can influence mood, behavior, and overall health.
  • #1
Greg Bernhardt
Is it a central nervous system stimulant or depressent?admin@physicsforums.com
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
When I saw the title I was going to suggest something like; Good, Really Good, etc. To be 'Blunt', I would say it is more of a depressant;Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.-- Ambrose Bierce
 
  • #3
quote:Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt:Is it a central nervous system stimulant or depressent?Hi Greg, in Canada it is classed as a pain killer and appetite stimulant. Its used in treatment of AIDS to offset the lack of hunger brought about by the chem/cocktails.Its used in synthetic form as a pain killer in cancer treatments.Its probably inadvertently used as a neuro pain killer in many instances of use... where people from broken or suppressed family atmospheres end up smoking it out of an innate search for an end to the psycho-drama caused at home. That would explain some of the findings that more depressed people smoke pot. Its not the pot depressing them... its that they were depressed to begin with and are now working through that pain on pot... among other activities. I'd say its a central nervous system stimulant much like nicotine.Happy solsticecarl
 
  • #4
Marijuana is a "mild" hallucinogen. It has so many byproducts when smoked that any "medicinal" value may be offset by harmful fractions, especially tar. Marijuana is not harmless; it is practically addictive to the 20% who abuse it regularly. Natural does not necessarily infer healthy. AIDS patients have other options for nausea, like Marinol, a synthetic and nonpsychoactive pharmaceutical based on pot.Personally, pot screwed up my social life (being the "head" of my class), caused me to pathologically forget, and bypassed my adolescent maturation process. Marijuana gave me great visual highs, and great mental pleasure.That's whyI was hooked on it for over ten years (~ten kilograms). I went on to experiment with readily accessible LSD, from which I may never recover. I had to drop out of Yale as a result. "Don't do what I did."Phase reality!{^,^}
 
  • #5
Did a bit of internet searching and one site,So who'd have thought it, cannabis is a nervous system stimulant. Considering alcohol is a nervous system depressant, assumming too much from such a general mechanism of action is foolish. Quite funny how I've seen cannabis labeled as a narcotic, especially in American law enforcement efforts. They should read a dictionary first!
 
  • #6
Instead of prescribing oneself pot, a psychiatrist can recommend more specific and appropriate substances for what ails you. Most marijuana "addicts" are self-medicating an underlying mood or thought disorder.Phase reality!{^,^}
 
  • #7
quote:Originally posted by lbooda:Personally, pot screwed up my social life (being the "head" of my class), caused me to pathologically forget, and bypassed my adolescent maturation process. Marijuana gave me great visual highs, and great mental pleasure.That's whyI was hooked on it for over ten years (~ten kilograms). I went on to experiment with readily accessible LSD, from which I may never recover. I had to drop out of Yale as a result. "Don't do what I did."Ibooda, I don't think you can blame any substance for screwing up your grades or your social life. You are the one who used it. It did not jump down your lungs of its own volition.You failed to recognize your inability to handle the substance and so, logically, you are at fault, here.In a case like this... say, if I had an allergy to limes... I might find out through trial and error, then... stop having limes with my Corona. If Corona gave me a headache, I might stop drinking Corona and start drinking Becks... but... I'd never blame the lime farmers (and least of all, the limes) or the Mexican beer makers, I just move on to a more comfortable/workable position and/or mechanism.EDIT:quote:Originally posted by lbooda:"Don't do what I did."Here I see a perfect example of self-centered ideology.Saying what you have said here is like me saying "Don't eat limes, they are evil and bad... they cause allergic reactions"... all of this based on the erroneous assumption that everyone will have the same reaction to a substance I don't like.As for pot being "addictive"... studies have only found a mild psychological dependence... there are addictive personalities attracted to this substance... much the same way coffee attracts continuous use/abuse... or chocolate... or booze... or cigarettes... or cigars..../carl
 
  • #8
"mild hallucinogen" is probably the best description, along with 'sensitizer,' kind of like 'grab bag' or 'potpouri' or so, but the long term effects of regular heavy use are basically homogenous. Extreme lack of motivation, lack of mental clarity, lack of judgement, Sagan called it the 'dim and distant world of a hard core drug user.' Oh well, no chemical is perfect.
 
  • #9
quote:In a case like this... say, if I had an allergy to limes... I might find out through trial and error, then... stop having limes with my Corona. If Corona gave me a headache, I might stop drinking Corona and start drinking Becks... but... I'd never blame the lime farmers (and least of all, the limes) or the Mexican beer makers, I just move on to a more comfortable/workable position and/or mechanism.Yes, it is very easy to generalise personal experiences (shaped by biophysical, moral and to some extent, class identity) across to others and I am prone to this myself.I respect Ibooda's basic attitude of being one who at least cares that substances such as dope and alcohol can be very damaging and destructive for some, maybe many, people. It is tempting to apply this across the board to all people. I myself am not able to partake in the pleasures of dope-smoking, trips and the like without paying rather enormous personal (and often financial) costs. I have many friends who DO seem to be able to partake without any problems to their mentle or physical health. Infact, for some of them (to my envy), use of stimulants and chemicals simply adds to their total experience of life without consequent bummers such as depression, violence, neurosis, apathy, 'craziness' or paranoia. Of course, I do have some friends who I personally think would fare much better without drugs or at least, some drugs.For me, drug-taking, for the most part, is not pleasant and is not life-embracing. But I have learnt to recognise the truth of what Carl is saying. I think there is still a huge amount of ignorance about the benefits of drugs for some people. Conservative attitudes which do not take into account individual differences, maturity and experience can be very condescending and repressing. I have learnt too, that many bad experiences of drug-use are often related to the peer-group with which one might be using. There is a vast difference between a group of inexperienced, irresponsible and possibly violent/criminal kinds of people, a peer-group of kids doing the 'experiment' thing as part of realising their own identities and mature, responsible people who do their homework, who care about life, themselves and others and acknowledge their own limits. And some people really do receive therapeutic benefits from a joint or two a day, especially amongst those who suffer from arthritis. But this sort of thing needs to be weighed up by the individual as to pros and cons ...for me, pain would be intensified because of the *way I think and tend to analyse*. Others are much more characteristically laid-back.Maybe more thoughts later.~Don't be sure you have it cornered; it may be round.~
 
  • #10
quote:Originally posted by Carla:Yes, it is very easy to generalise personal experiences (shaped by biophysical, moral and to some extent, class identity) across to others and I am prone to this myself.I respect Ibooda's basic attitude of being one who at least cares that substances such as dope and alcohol can be very damaging and destructive for some, maybe many, people. It is tempting to apply this across the board to all people. I myself am not able to partake in the pleasures of dope-smoking, trips and the like without paying rather enormous personal (and often financial) costs. I have many friends who DO seem to be able to partake without any problems to their mentle or physical health. Infact, for some of them (to my envy), use of stimulants and chemicals simply adds to their total experience of life without consequent bummers such as depression, violence, neurosis, apathy, 'craziness' or paranoia. Of course, I do have some friends who I personally think would fare much better without drugs or at least, some drugs.For me, drug-taking, for the most part, is not pleasant and is not life-embracing. But I have learnt to recognise the truth of what Carl is saying. I think there is still a huge amount of ignorance about the benefits of drugs for some people. Conservative attitudes which do not take into account individual differences, maturity and experience can be very condescending and repressing. I have learnt too, that many bad experiences of drug-use are often related to the peer-group with which one might be using. There is a vast difference between a group of inexperienced, irresponsible and possibly violent/criminal kinds of people, a peer-group of kids doing the 'experiment' thing as part of realising their own identities and mature, responsible people who do their homework, who care about life, themselves and others and acknowledge their own limits. And some people really do receive therapeutic benefits from a joint or two a day, especially amongst those who suffer from arthritis. But this sort of thing needs to be weighed up by the individual as to pros and cons ...for me, pain would be intensified because of the *way I think and tend to analyse*. Others are much more characteristically laid-back.Maybe more thoughts later.Carla, I think you indicated that you are involved in the medical community there in Australia. Is there is a medical use of canibus or synthetic THC for pain control and appetite stimulus as there is here in Canada?carl
 
  • #11
i have heard stimulant, depressent and hallucinogen over the years, its effects seem to varry greatly from person to another but it doesnt physicaly or mentaly cause enough of a reaction to classify it as any one of the three. regardless, most people who haven't smoked or the ones blame it for their problems think its criminal. they even used to teach that it kills.
 
  • #12
[/quote]Carla, I think you indicated that you are involved in the medical community there in Australia. Is there is a medical use of canibus or synthetic THC for pain control and appetite stimulus as there is here in Canada?carl[/quote]Not to my knowledge. Every so often you hear about some little old lady or man getting busted for 'possession' when they're just growing a few plants for self-medicating purposes.Our governments stance on drugs is ridiculously sheltered, middle-class and conservative. Their "say no to drugs" anti-drug campaign is a joke. If I were a teenager, for instance, I would deliberately take drugs after viewing their horrible advertisements just to ENSURE I didn't end up like the sickening paragons of virtue who monotonously patronise and moralise and do anything but empower the individual to take control of their own destiny through self-education and responsibility.~Don't be sure you have it cornered; it may be round.~
 
  • #13
I wonder...do the usually mild side effects outweigh the medicinal benefits, especially for those AIDS patients whose standard of living can be so low to begin with. I know if I were dying and starving to death at the same time, I would trade 10% of my IQ for some relief from suffering.******************************A truly open mind has to be open to the possibility that a radical idea, however exciting, may prove to be a load of codswallop!
 
  • #14
I just dont feel like that's a valid argument, because smokin pot is aconsentualcrime, meaning that basically you are harming yourself, and maybe ticking your relatives off, but you're not doing any serious damage to others. It's so imoral to legislate morality and religion, such as like what the Taliban were doing, especially in such a diverse society."Las cosas claras y el chocolate espeso. --Ideas should be clear and chocolate thick"old spanish proverb
 
  • #15
well theift or battery are consentual crime as well. smokeing pot is a victomless crime though, like not wearing your seatbelt. just a rule of the system and not acutaly punsishing anyone for something they did to anyone else.
 
  • #16
quote:well theift or battery are consentual crime as wellThat is FALSE."Las cosas claras y el chocolate espeso. --Ideas should be clear and chocolate thick"old spanish proverb
 
  • #17
i am sorry, was not aware of the defnintion of the phrase, please ignore my above stupidity.
 
  • #18
I agree with lbooda insofar as pot had a very bad influence on me and I wouldn't recommend it unless you really know what you are doing. Doctors may be qualified to perscribe it but aren't allowed to in UK.This quote caught my eye.quote:Originally posted by schwartzchildradius999:...It's so imoral to legislate morality...If you don't legislate morality, what do you legislate?42 is just another number
 
  • #19
Right. I meant in a religious context. For example, certain religious doctrines prohibit killing others arbitrarily. Not coincidentally we have laws prohibiting the same acts. Yet in both cases, societal law and religious doctrine, acts of killing are permitted in principle under certain conditions. My contention is that law should flow from philosophical analysis as opposed to religious tradition."Las cosas claras y el chocolate espeso. --Ideas should be clear and chocolate thick"old spanish proverb
 
  • #20
quote:Originally posted by Zero:I wonder...do the usually mild side effects outweigh the medicinal benefits, especially for those AIDS patients whose standard of living can be so low to begin with. I know if I were dying and starving to death at the same time, I would trade 10% of my IQ for some relief from suffering.I have a feeling 10% of Zero's IQ down the drain isn't going to make that much difference, ... 10% of 250 shouldn't hurt!Another attribute of the side effects of THC is how it lowers the blood sugar levels. For a diabetic this may offer a readily available synthetic insulin. No studies have been published that determine a methodology whereby THC could be controled to the benefit of diabetics... mind you.carl
 
  • #21
quote:Originally posted by schwartzchildradius999:Right. I meant in a religious context. For example, certain religious doctrines prohibit killing others arbitrarily. Not coincidentally we have laws prohibiting the same acts. Yet in both cases, societal law and religious doctrine, acts of killing are permitted in principle under certain conditions. My contention is that law should flow from philosophical analysis as opposed to religious tradition.I agree that it is immoral to legislate a religion. I don't think this is really the case with drug abuse laws though.42 is just another number
 
Back
Top