Can we talk about marijuana?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Seeing it's being formed into an "Us vs Them" scenario, with certain members 'forgetting' what they are arguing with . . .

So, I shall highlight the points that I was making. Smoking it, being the most common manner of consumption, is harmful and that taking it during youth (ie during brain development) can increase the risk of psychological issues.


Seems to be a good summary review:
Hall, W. & MacPhee, D. "Cannabis use and cancer" Addiction, 2002; 97(3): 234-247


Related to an increase in psychological issues when taken during developmental years:
Linszen, D, H et al. "Cannabis Abuse and the Course of Recent-Onset Schizophrenic Disorders" Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51(4): 273-279
Arseneault, L. et al. "Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study" BMJ, 2002; 325: 1212-1213
Arseneault, L. et al. "Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence" BJ Psych, 2004; 184 : 110-117


Smoking:
Aldington, S. et al. "Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study" ERJ 2008; 31(2): 280-286


And if you want a real hoot (to lighten the mood):
Juel-Jensen, B.E. "Cannabis and Recurrent Herpes Simplex" BMJ 1972; 4(2): 296

A 30-year-old man was first seen in October 1971 complaining of recurrent herpes of the shaft of the penis. The attacks lasted for five to eight days. For the past two years they had occurred much more often. During that period he had been smoking cannabis, and within two to three days, never less, never more, of having a "reefer" he would vet a recurrence of his genital herpes.

Edit - I'll also add this is from some very quick reading over of sound peer-reviewed sources.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, merely as an observation based on your posts so far, but I seriously doubt you currently have a strong enough background in science to analyse the statistics in any really thorough studies that may suggest it is harmful, and even if you did, I doubt you would read them with an open mind. You'd read them and write them off as being funded by, or done on behalf of "the man", while citing non peer-reviewed studies from potlovers.com, as totally acceptable.

I'll give you a little advice to get you started on how to really research a topic. First things first, read the results and methodology of any study. This is where the raw data, free from any biased interpretation, will be found. A thorough methodology section will also give away any biases. Ignore the conclusion section, a conclusion is just one group's interpretation, another group may interpret the very same data differently.

Secondly, look for good peer review systems. Something published by the Royal Society, or the US equivalent, with a thorough peer review system is much more likely to hold water than something published in some trashy magazine article.

Thirdly, just plain avoid basing your opinions on things you read on websites that are blatantly obviously pushing either agenda.

I'm not arguing for or against cannabis use here, just against poor logic and improper application of science.

Major +1

And likewise, not arguing for or against.

The "it's the devil" argument is just as bad as the "miracle cure-all being held back by the man" argument.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

It HAS been scientifically proven that marijuana does contain substantially more cancer causing tar then tobacco.
So if you believe that cigarettes have a detrimental effect on health, then you also believe that marijuana is unhealthy...

But there again, no one HAS to believe that, if they do not want to. No one has to believe the world is round either. You cannot prove it to them, if they do not want to accept it
at that point it becomes a matter of faith

I will add that while what you say is true, those studies have been proven to be false and inconclusive due to several factors. First, the tar and cancer causing substances are also found within several other addictive chemicals and substances mixed within a cigarette which would put cigarette tar over the marijuana tar, but they were only comparing marijuana to tobacco. Second, the amount of tobacco smoked per dose, is much higher than the amount smoked per typical dose of marijuana, but they compared equal amounts. The reality is that a typical cigarette is tobacco and many other chemicals mixed together, while a typical jay of the same amount is more than often shared amongst several people and not typically smoked several times a day. A cigarette represents one dose of nicotine and whatever else you smoke, while a joint (marijuana cigarette) typically represents several doses. So the average dose of marijuana is a LOT less than the average amount consumed by a cigarette smokers, and therefore the tar is also a lot less. BUT, I'm splitting hairs. Smoking marijuana is still bad for you, no matter how you look at it. Vaporizers are actually a much healthier way of consuming it.

 

[Lee H]

Just for the record, I do not like that the federal regulations for section one intoxicants prohibit taxpayer money being spent on study...
All the current study is being funded by private pro-marijuana groups, to use for marijuana promotion.

I would like to see money spent on studies for treatment options of both addiction and of the long term effects of marijuana use

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Don't add to what I said, or manipulate the context..
abuse is a huge issue in CA, and marijuana is a hot topic. I never mentioned other drugs, and other drugs have absolutely nothing at all to do with medical marijuana abusers causing the laws for marijuana privileges being revisited and limited

He has a very valid point. The idea of people abusing the system to get marijuana is not much like people abusing it for other drugs. Actually, I've known many doctors that have gotten hooked on painkillers because of their ease of access to the stuff.

Aborgman made a good point about people throughout history experimenting and using drugs. It seems obvious that as long as the stuff is around people will use it, regardless of it's legality.

 

[ShredderMaximus]

did you really think you could discredit my point that easily?

OK, these results were originally found by a pro pot study group trying to prove that marijuana was completely harmless. They tried to hide their results, but were unsuccessful

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Oh snap!...LOL

You mean SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU?! NO WAY!!!!!!!
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
If this is all the citable evidence you have for the negative effect of pot on the human body, you are leaving out a few factors, i.e. ingestion and vaping. No tar, no bronchitis, none of that.

Oh snap!...LOL

 

[shaggy_k]

The study I mentioned in a previous post about the effect of cannabis on the lungs was conducted by Dr Donald Tashkin. I hope I stated I was writing from memory, as I called him Dr Tonkin. My apologies.

 

[Lee H]

I will add that while what you say is true, those studies have been proven to be false and inconclusive due to several factors. First, the tar and cancer causing substances are also found within several other addictive chemicals and substances mixed within a cigarette which would put cigarette tar over the marijuana tar, but they were only comparing marijuana to tobacco. Second, the amount of tobacco smoked per dose, is much higher than the amount smoked per typical dose of marijuana, but they compared equal amounts. The reality is that a typical cigarette is tobacco and many other chemicals mixed together, while a typical jay of the same amount is more than often shared amongst several people and not typically smoked several times a day. A cigarette represents one dose of nicotine and whatever else you smoke, while a joint (marijuana cigarette) typically represents several doses. So the average dose of marijuana is a LOT less than the average amount consumed by a cigarette smokers, and therefore the tar is also a lot less. BUT, I'm splitting hairs. Smoking marijuana is still bad for you, no matter how you look at it. Vaporizers are actually a much healthier way of consuming it.

That is assuming there is a standard. Unfortunately that is a slippery slope. Since CA legalized marijuana for medicinal use, there have been huge jumps in cultivation and even plant cloning. The current strains (nicknamed Cronic) are exponentially more potent than anything from the past. Current chemical content of the plant itself puts tar content at 50-70% greater than raw tobacco (no chemicals added)...

This can tilt the scales either way One can either say that it takes less marijuana to get the desired effect, or one could say that smoking one introduced the body to many times more carcinogens them a cigarette

He has a very valid point. The idea of people abusing the system to get marijuana is not much like people abusing it for other drugs. Actually, I've known many doctors that have gotten hooked on painkillers because of their ease of access to the stuff.

Aborgman made a good point about people throughout history experimenting and using drugs. It seems obvious that as long as the stuff is around people will use it, regardless of it's legality.

OK, I will grant that it was a valid point. It just was not valid to the context of this discussion. I had mentioned abuse resulting in stringent regulation. he changed the focus to another drug rather than admit that marijuana abuse was a problem and was resulting in legal action in CA. It was a subtle change, but that is what it was none the less. it dod imply that the poster could not, or did not want to discuss the abuse of marijuana, and the resulting regulations on marijuana. Opiates have absolutely nothing to do with CA legal action on medical marijuana.
I understand the reasoning behind the attempted refocus. No marijuana user wants to look at CA and have to face the mess that prop 215 abusers have made of the system. Other states have been watching CA's debacle when considering decriminalization bills of their own. Unfortunately denying or avoiding discussion of marijuana abuse will not make the topic or the resulting laws go away

 

[NateS]

That is assuming there is a standard. Unfortunately that is a slippery slope. Since CA legalized marijuana for medicinal use, there have been huge jumps in cultivation and even plant cloning. The current strains (nicknamed Cronic) are exponentially more potent than anything from the past. Current chemical content of the plant itself puts tar content at 50-70% greater than raw tobacco (no chemicals added)...

Source?

 

[OldGreg]

When it comes down to it... what harm does legalizing/decriminalizing/regulating cause to society? It is extremely obvious that marijuana prohibition does not work.
What it does do is create a underground market for it, which causes violence on several levels.

Drugs will be abused one way or another. By regulating it in someway, you get rid of its black market status. Ever heard of the Cartels in Mexico smuggling in moonshine?

We are wasting money, time, and more importantly losing lives trying to enforce an unenforceable policy. Forget about taxing it, let's just re-coup the resource we still can. Money is wasted from the DEA to the Boarder Patrol, to the countless police departments paying Joe Schmo to file the paperwork.

What's being done now it's working and its scary the number of people who don't see it. This really shouldn't be a big issue.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I'm not from California, so please forgive me for my ignorance on the issues you all are facing, as my knowledge on it is quite limited.

That stated, to me the reason behind the abuse of the system is clear. They deemed marijuana acceptable as a medicinal drug, and as such people are coming out of the woodwork in order to get their prescription because people use drugs. It's not the drugs fault. I'm even hesitant to say it's the people's fault. I think this whole issue of abusing the system could be fixed almost immediately if they simply made the drug legal and worked to regulate it and sell it in a similar manner to alcohol.

If that happened, people wouldn't be looking for ways to screw over the system. They wouldn't have to come up with sketchy ailments in order to buy and use a substance that seems to be no more harmful than alcohol. I'd dare say that people might even be more responsible with the stuff since it'd be in the open and not underground. To me, making it legal for medicinal purposes is like putting a band-aid on an open wound that clearly needs stitches. The band-aid doesn't fix the problem. It tries to cover it up while the wound just continues to get worse. Fix the issue at its source.

 

[spade2you]

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, merely as an observation based on your posts so far, but I seriously doubt you currently have a strong enough background in science to analyse the statistics in any really thorough studies that may suggest it is harmful, and even if you did, I doubt you would read them with an open mind. You'd read them and write them off as being funded by, or done on behalf of "the man", while citing non peer-reviewed studies from potlovers.com, as totally acceptable.

I'll give you a little advice to get you started on how to really research a topic. First things first, read the results and methodology of any study. This is where the raw data, free from any biased interpretation, will be found. A thorough methodology section will also give away any biases. Ignore the conclusion section, a conclusion is just one group's interpretation, another group may interpret the very same data differently.

Secondly, look for good peer review systems. Something published by the Royal Society, or the US equivalent, with a thorough peer review system is much more likely to hold water than something published in some trashy magazine article.

Thirdly, just plain avoid basing your opinions on things you read on websites that are blatantly obviously pushing either agenda.

I'm not arguing for or against cannabis use here, just against poor logic and improper application of science.

I agree, although I would be meaning to be derogatory with his lack of background in the sciences.

I appreciate the passion, but overplaying one's hand like this destroys legitimate credibility.

 

[OldGreg]

OK, I will grant that it was a valid point. It just was not valid to the context of this discussion. I had mentioned abuse resulting in stringent regulation. he changed the focus to another drug rather than admit that marijuana abuse was a problem and was resulting in legal action in CA. It was a subtle change, but that is what it was none the less. it dod imply that the poster could not, or did not want to discuss the abuse of marijuana, and the resulting regulations on marijuana. Opiates have absolutely nothing to do with CA legal action on medical marijuana.

Why isn't there any legal action being done to limit the abuse of opiates. I work in a ER and I see this EVERY day. People will come the the ER seven times a week, they don't always get a script, but there are several other ER's nearby.

No matter the drug, I people want it, they will get it. Marijuana or Viagra, doesn't matter.

 

[Lee H]

Why isn't there any legal action being done to limit the abuse of opiates. I work in a ER and I see this EVERY day. People will come the the ER seven times a week, they don't always get a script, but there are several other ER's nearby.

No matter the drug, I people want it, they will get it. Marijuana or Viagra, doesn't matter.

To be honest, I do not know why more is not done about opiates. More should be!

Marijuana abuse became a hot topic because of the financial aspect. People can get a prescription for $150. They they are allowed to grow their own "medicine" . Welfare people turned it into an untaxable career, while having the taxpayers cover their living expenses.

 

[spade2you]

Tactic #1, bogus studies.

To be honest, I do not know why more is not done about opiates. More should be!

Marijuana abuse became a hot topic because of the financial aspect. People can get a prescription for $150. They they are allowed to grow their own "medicine" . Welfare people turned it into an untaxable career, while having the taxpayers cover their living expenses.

Tactic #2, diversions. Let's focus on other bad things.

 

[OldGreg]

To be honest, I do not know why more is not done about opiates. More should be!

Marijuana abuse became a hot topic because of the financial aspect. People can get a prescription for $150. They they are allowed to grow their own "medicine" . Welfare people turned it into an untaxable career, while having the taxpayers cover their living expenses.

Get rid of prohibition, get rid of the problem. How many welfare people distill liquor as an untaxable career, while having the taxpayers cover their living expenses. (Because only people on welfare take advantage of flawed laws in our country)

 

[fingerbun]

Get rid of prohibition, get rid of the problem. How many welfare people distill liquor as an untaxable career, while having the taxpayers cover their living expenses. (Because only people on welfare take advantage of flawed laws in our country)

While I think there are good arguments for legalization I would not say that eliminating alcohol prohibition got rid of alcohol abuse issues.

 

[armywalaby]

No. They're based, as I've already mentioned, on a lot of experience. Both mine and others.

Your experience is irrelevant to science.

I'm surprised everyday how many of you are loyal gov't puds.

 

[aborgman]

While I think there are good arguments for legalization I would not say that eliminating alcohol prohibition got rid of alcohol abuse issues.

No, but it did reduce them.

 

[armywalaby]

Show me an article where someone died from smoking buds.