Effect of Cannabis use on hearing

[Soandso]

THC in cannabis leads to brain dopamine release which influences 'reward' experiences. During music listening the dopamine "reward" includes pleasure and a greater sense of satisfaction.

As for THC enhancement of musical detail perception this is again dopamine related. Dopamine produces relatively increased mental processing which creates a sensation of time going slower whereby the brain's focus on transitional musical content is greater.

 

[thedaveabides]

I'm not going to bother saying whom I believe is whom, but I am going to say with absolute certainty that a couple of the 'loudest', most 'authoritative'-presenting voices in this conversation (going as far back as the first page) are talking absolute nonsense that's comprised of extremely loosely associated conjecture, at best, and absolute bullshit made up from one's own 'feelings' driven opinions, at worst. I suggest that anyone reading through this looking for actual 'information' on the topic consider this about each thing they read: does it sound, per clues in their own words, as though the writer knows anything at all, firsthand, about the topic at hand? Does it sound, per the clues in their own words, as though, perhaps, they have an axe to grind concerning the issue? And does it sound, per the clues in their own words, as though they are even remotely open to the possibility of their opinions shifting/changing at all, under any circumstances - or is their mind made up forever no matter what new information - anecdotal, scientific, or otherwise - is presented to them? People have a tendency to sound the most 'forceful' (for lack of a better word) about the things they feel the strongest about, and not so much the things they know the most about.

Take that for what it's worth. As for my own pedigree, I have experience-a-plenty on both the scientific side and the I-experienced-so-I-feel/believe side. I support cannabis use but do not use myself. That said, I used cannabis just about every day for about 25 years, but I haven't used in about 2-3 years. I grew before cannabis was legal here (Oregon) and grew extensively and in several capacities since legalization. First as a hobby but later as part of a profession, I made it a truly regular activity to study the studies that were born in droves in the grey area between Sched 1 classification with the feds and legal status with the state. I performed various experiments of my own, kept meticulous grow journals on my small to medium sized setups, got into making my own concentrates and, inside of that, became anywhere from loosely capable to well proficient in a number of methods. I've collected decades of my own and other peoples' accounts of the many types of effects of cannabis experienced and observed them truly objectively (I am IN LOVE with the truth, as a concept, and have little respect for 'feelings' on measurable things).

I don't say all this to say that I am the world's foremost cannabis expert - I know enough to know that I am not even close to. However, I know enough to state the things I did in the first paragraph of this post with great confidence and hope that whoever is reading will take it to heart lest your opinions + understanding = nothing more than the opinions of those who refuse all understanding. For fun, I attached a picture of me. (If anyone enjoys such things, I have many, many more from grows large and small, different extract expeditions, and more - gimme a holler)

*My very first plant when I experimented with closet sized grow tents many moons ago - Blue Dream grown in a 4' x 4' tent under 600w MH during veg and 600w HPS during flowering*

 

[Littletycoon]

I'm not going to bother saying whom I believe is whom, but I am going to say with absolute certainty that a couple of the 'loudest', most 'authoritative'-presenting voices in this conversation (going as far back as the first page) are talking absolute nonsense that's comprised of extremely loosely associated conjecture, at best, and absolute bullshit made up from one's own 'feelings' driven opinions, at worst. I suggest that anyone reading through this looking for actual 'information' on the topic consider this about each thing they read: does it sound, per clues in their own words, as though the writer knows anything at all, firsthand, about the topic at hand? Does it sound, per the clues in their own words, as though, perhaps, they have an axe to grind concerning the issue? And does it sound, per the clues in their own words, as though they are even remotely open to the possibility of their opinions shifting/changing at all, under any circumstances - or is their mind made up forever no matter what new information - anecdotal, scientific, or otherwise - is presented to them? People have a tendency to sound the most 'forceful' (for lack of a better word) about the things they feel the strongest about, and not so much the things they know the most about.

Take that for what it's worth. As for my own pedigree, I have experience-a-plenty on both the scientific side and the I-experienced-so-I-feel/believe side. I support cannabis use but do not use myself. That said, I used cannabis just about every day for about 25 years, but I haven't used in about 2-3 years. I grew before cannabis was legal here (Oregon) and grew extensively and in several capacities since legalization. First as a hobby but later as part of a profession, I made it a truly regular activity to study the studies that were born in droves in the grey area between Sched 1 classification with the feds and legal status with the state. I performed various experiments of my own, kept meticulous grow journals on my small to medium sized setups, got into making my own concentrates and, inside of that, became anywhere from loosely capable to well proficient in a number of methods. I've collected decades of my own and other peoples' accounts of the many types of effects of cannabis experienced and observed them truly objectively (I am IN LOVE with the truth, as a concept, and have little respect for 'feelings' on measurable things).

I don't say all this to say that I am the world's foremost cannabis expert - I know enough to know that I am not even close to. However, I know enough to state the things I did in the first paragraph of this post with great confidence and hope that whoever is reading will take it to heart lest your opinions + understanding = nothing more than the opinions of those who refuse all understanding. For fun, I attached a picture of me. (If anyone enjoys such things, I have many, many more from grows large and small, different extract expeditions, and more - gimme a holler)

*My very first plant when I experimented with closet sized grow tents many moons ago - Blue Dream grown in a 4' x 4' tent under 600w MH during veg and 600w HPS during flowering*
View attachment 396526

Ok, what's your point?

 

[Emlin]

Ok, what's your point?

Point or joint?

 

[thedaveabides]

Ok, what's your point?

My point was presented perfectly clearly when I offered: "I suggest that anyone reading through this looking for actual 'information' on the topic consider this about each thing they read......"

I get the feeling your response was more a passive/aggressive invitation to an argument than an actual question. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Emlin]

My point was presented perfectly clearly when I offered: "I suggest that anyone reading through this looking for actual 'information' on the topic consider this about each thing they read......"

I get the feeling your response was more a passive/aggressive invitation to an argument than an actual question. Thanks but no thanks.

Everything should be read critically. Is that it? Why did you post that on this thread specifically?

 

[thedaveabides]

Everything should be read critically. Is that it? Why did you post that on this thread specifically?

To put it very broadly, yes, everything should be read critically. What exactly does that mean, though? I offered some relative framework for doing exactly that. It's possible that a person may not consider a possible angle from which to assess something - I'm grateful whenever I stumble across such an angle that someone has offered but I have not yet considered myself. Perhaps someone else will feel the same way as they read along here.

You asked why I posted here - have I justified my contribution to your standards? Since we apparently need to do this, would you tell me: why did you post here? Why did you choose to respond to my statement at all? Why did you choose to respond negatively (thinly veiled)?

Or perhaps we can just stop this?

 

[Robin L]

Everything should be read critically. Is that it? Why did you post that on this thread specifically?

Because, as the photo implies, the man has a certain expertise as regards the subject.

 

[thedaveabides]

Because, as the photo implies, the man has a certain expertise as regards the subject.

Thanks Robin!

I have learned a lot about the subject over the years but I didn't post to argue the science with people I considered 'wrong'. I posted my suggestions on how to critically assess a lot of this in response to my own alarm at how much misinformation I read here. Rather than be a dick and start publicly calling people out and claiming that they're wrong, arguing and all that nonsense, I simply suggested that some extra scrutiny be used and politely left names and quotes out of it. Unfortunately, that approach is not universally valued.

 

[Robin L]

Thanks Robin!

I have learned a lot about the subject over the years but I didn't post to argue the science with people I considered 'wrong'. I posted my suggestions on how to critically assess a lot of this in response to my own alarm at how much misinformation I read here. Rather than be a dick and start publicly calling people out and claiming that they're wrong, arguing and all that nonsense, I simply suggested that some extra scrutiny be used and politely left names and quotes out of it. Unfortunately, that approach is not universally valued.

I used to be an enthusiast. However, recent events have demonstrated to me that cannabis is not as harmless as I once thought. I've been diagnosed as bipolar. I see "psychosis" frequently bandied about when describing the potential adverse psychological effects of cannabis. But I now think it's really mania at the bottom of potential problems with cannabis. Not necessarily with everyone, but certainly with those diagnosed as bipolar. I no longer have the option of indulging.

 

[Emlin]

To put it very broadly, yes, everything should be read critically. What exactly does that mean, though? I offered some relative framework for doing exactly that. It's possible that a person may not consider a possible angle from which to assess something - I'm grateful whenever I stumble across such an angle that someone has offered but I have not yet considered myself. Perhaps someone else will feel the same way as they read along here.

You asked why I posted here - have I justified my contribution to your standards? Since we apparently need to do this, would you tell me: why did you post here? Why did you choose to respond to my statement at all? Why did you choose to respond negatively (thinly veiled)?

Or perhaps we can just stop this?

Done.

 

[egellings]

I used to be an enthusiast. However, recent events have demonstrated to me that cannabis is not as harmless as I once thought. I've been diagnosed as bipolar. I see "psychosis" frequently bandied about when describing the potential adverse psychological effects of cannabis. But I now think it's really mania at the bottom of potential problems with cannabis. Not necessarily with everyone, but certainly with those diagnosed as bipolar. I no longer have the option of indulging.

IVe been diagnosed as MOSFET myself.

 

[Soandso]

IVe been diagnosed as MOSFET myself.

Got me one of those in my pacemaker.

 

[Soandso]

I used to be an enthusiast. However, recent events have demonstrated to me that cannabis is not as harmless as I once thought. I've been diagnosed as bipolar.

Dopamine dynamics in the brain are not linear in terms of acute and cumulative cannabis usage. There are phases of interplay where some dopamine brain chemistry actors perform independent of each other, but when they act as a functional unit the opposite occurs. Plus genetics play a role in dopamine homeostasis.

For example generally an episode of cannabis THC intake instigates those dopamine actors' own reward pathway "bump(s)". However depending on the individual there is a time phase where-in brain dopamine actors start dual functioning and then dopamine dynamic down-shifts to "anxiety" pathways (as opposed to "reward') , which is a depleted active dopamine state.

For example you might smoke some weed, get high and enjoy the buzz for awhile. If in time start foot jiggling and/or body fussing (a form of self-soothing) and/or get paranoid that is classic "anxiety" which is a rebound to a lower active dopamine state. Apparently for some chronic users of cannabis THC it doesn't spike dopamine levels higher (faster?) than they degrade it (dopamine).

The screen shot below names a metabolite of dopamine ("HVA" = homovanillic acid) which is a marker (not itself the causative agent) of bipolar states. My impression is that this reveals the paradoxical (low active) dopamine level associated with chronic cannabis THC use and why it is contra-indicated for bipolar individuals (as well as in "mania" and psychosis). [Mother was given a "gummie" by someone for her pain and the attending emergency room physician told me they get lots of older people ending up there from "panic anxiety attacks." So there may be additional age, gender and underlying medical conditions' dynamics of dopamine balance in regards to cannabis intake.]

 

[Littletycoon]

My point was presented perfectly clearly when I offered: "I suggest that anyone reading through this looking for actual 'information' on the topic consider this about each thing they read......"

I get the feeling your response was more a passive/aggressive invitation to an argument than an actual question. Thanks but no thanks.

It was just a question. The feeling is fully yours

 

[Peterinvan]

While I don’t recommend THC (or any other mind altering drugs) to anyone, having seen over the years that everyone seems to react differently. Some folks have a good experience and some don’t.

That said, as many contributors to this and other audio forums have said over and over, it’s the actual listening experience that counts. All the articles and reviews may influence our choices, but in the end it’s what our ears (and brain) hears.

 

[drewdawg999]

I used to be an enthusiast. However, recent events have demonstrated to me that cannabis is not as harmless as I once thought. I've been diagnosed as bipolar. I see "psychosis" frequently bandied about when describing the potential adverse psychological effects of cannabis. But I now think it's really mania at the bottom of potential problems with cannabis. Not necessarily with everyone, but certainly with those diagnosed as bipolar. I no longer have the option of indulging.

That's too bad. I still partake despite being diagnosed schizo-affective. It's been treated and I dutifully take my meds, been stable for a few years now. I have had mania problems in the past, but I was abusing it, along with drinking wine. I quit drinking but not my beloved sweet leaf, which I do in moderation now.

I would say it definitely enhances the listening experience, making it along with just about anything more enjoyable. Been smoking and listening to music for so long now, like 30 years or so, and it never gets old. Makes laser focus so much easier to achieve, gets the head nodding and body grooving. This high dopamine level sensory overload is intoxicating, seductive, romantic and lush in nature. I need the body high though so it's mostly Indicas for me, chill, subdued and mellow.

 

[Oddball]

Not to forget that weed destroys your lung and in that respect is a poor decision. Not sure about other ways to consume it, but there must be a better way than trading a bit of high for your health.

 

[Peterinvan]

Not to forget that weed destroys your lung and in that respect is a poor decision. Not sure about other ways to consume it, but there must be a better way than trading a bit of high for your health.

IMHO smoking the leaf (i.e. joints or pipes) introduces unnecessary levels of carbon into one’s lungs. Look up DIY rigs for vaporizing the leaf. Another tip… suck on a Halls major strength menthol lozenge to further comfort while vaping.

NOTE My belief is that vaping oils or similar manufactured products for portable vapes introduces other hazards.

 

[donahana]

Not to forget that weed destroys your lung and in that respect is a poor decision. Not sure about other ways to consume it, but there must be a better way than trading a bit of high for your health.

You can still vaporize or even cook with it though, and well, people already trade their health for things much less exciting than a bit of high