October 5th, 2009, 10:57 PM
I always thought it was well known that Marijuana is bad for you, but then I did a google search about marijuana health effects and found mostly controversial or non conclusive studies.
How does Marijuana effect you? Is it really bad for you?
It doesn't seem logical to me that there'd be a drug that can consistantly cause euphoria with no bad side effects.
What do you guys think?
As with any drug/pharmaceutical/chemical you put into your body, using cannabis for medical or recreational purposes will definitely have some potential negative side effects (if you smoke it, for example, you are breathing in unhealthy chemicals and toxins that are a result of the combustion of the cellulose in the plant, and if you ingest it another way, there is the risk that you will experience paranoia or dizziness) but it can be argued that marijuana has less harmful potential side effects than many pharmaceutical drugs out there. This website is very informative: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/section.php?id=218
Marijuana smoke is not nice stuff. As a general rule, any smoke contains carcinogens and toxins. For example : studies have shown a high lung cancer rate among Buddhist monks who live in temples filled with incense smoke.
Marijuana is probably not as bad as tobacco for the simple reason that smokers of pot do not smoke as many joints as tobacco addicts smoke cigarettes. However, one joint is just as unhealthy as one cigarette.
biggest reason it isnt safe is the fact that it isnt regulated by the government (atleast in the US) so drug dealers can throw on all kinds of crazy pesticides that you will later breath in.
This doesn't sound accurate. Even if zero pesticides are on the product, and even if the government regulated it... it is still ultimately a product which is smoked, and anything you smoke brings with it various carcinogens and toxins... Precisely as skeptic mentioned in the post immediately above yours. Hell... people who barbecue are more likely to get lung cancer than those who don't, so of course marijuana has some risk.Originally Posted by Zeig
Also, with marijuana, the "drug dealers" tend to get theirs already separated in little baggies (usually gallon sized storage bags at most if they are dealing with pounds instead of ounces). The only way pesticides would be applied would be by the drug growers, not the drug dealers.
ok well duh, i ment besides the fact that your filling your lungs wtih smoke. i think thats a given.This doesn't sound accurate. Even if zero pesticides are on the product, and even if the government regulated it... it is still ultimately a product which is smoked, and anything you smoke brings with it various carcinogens and toxins... Precisely as skeptic mentioned in the post immediately above yours. Hell... people who barbecue are more likely to get lung cancer than those who don't, so of course marijuana has some risk.
Also, with marijuana, the "drug dealers" tend to get theirs already separated in little baggies (usually gallon sized storage bags at most if they are dealing with pounds instead of ounces). The only way pesticides would be applied would be by the drug growers, not the drug dealers.
I find myself agreeing with iNow. Pesticides are a non issue. Modern pesticides degrade over time, and the marijuana has to be dried and processed before sale, which gives the pesticides time to degrade. In addition, smoking a joint means the dried leaf material is exposed to substantially high temperatures, which will break down any tiny pesticide residues even further.
I think that pesticides will be such a tiny, tiny component of the smoke that they can be ignored as too trivial to count. Not so for the carcinogens and toxins from the smoke.
Depends on the marijuana. In British Columbia (a major pot exporter) much is grown hydroponically in basements, warehouses, etc. These growers produce a dense, sticky product extremely high in the drug THC, by literally pumping plants with individual feeding tubes of hormones, nutrients, whatever works to yield the highest quality in limited space.
If I remember correctly, the plant produces more THC while attempting to flower as it dies. There's some odd chemistry going on there; the growers' business is exploiting that to the maximum.
Remember dairy farmers putting melamine in milk, to make it seem higher in protein? Marijuana growers would do likewise, for sure. If they found that feeding lead to plants worked, they'd do it.
i think fdr is bad for us and he made it illegal
Marijuana doesn't have to be smoked, and its has negative/positive effects...
Again, marijuana doesn't have to be smoked, and you can purchase "Marinol" which has the main substance in marijuana, THC.
Drugdealers could always put a little heroin in the pot to make you really hooked. Whatever's good for business, right?
Marijuana, as with any drug, can have negative side-effects when abused over a long period of time. It can cause depression and make you addictive. However, if you're not a heavy user, you're more likely to have positive side-effects where THC, in the right dose, can have quite potent anti-depressive effects. The most unhealthy way of consuming marijuana is through smoking (which is also the most common). However, if you use a vaporizer, it won't be much of a problem.
Mixed with other drugs, marijuana can be quite deleterious. Alcohol and marijuana are a bad mix where there's really no telling what could happen. Don't mix drugs, kids.
Other than that, it's near impossible to take an overdose of THC. Compared to alcohol and nicotin, marijuana is really not that harmful and not in the slightest addictive (unless you're a heavy user over a long period of time). If marijuana was as popular as alcohol and nicotin, it would most likely be legal. The most popular drug wins society's trust; is the moral of this story.
On the street they say self-medication. A common pattern is to smoke a joint just when one normally starts brooding, i.e. alone in the evening.
They we might ask if chronic self-medication is bad for you? I have no clue how psychiatrists would react to that.
Whatever works for the individual, I guess. Seeing a psychiatrist is a form of medication, but maybe this doesn't work for everyone. We all deal with our problems differently. Some means are more effective than others, and other means simply creates more problems. I would think there's a common way for people to deal with their problems through social means, and not medication. Although there might be exceptions?They we might ask if chronic self-medication is bad for you? I have no clue how psychiatrists would react to that.
There are those who use marijuana -and other drugs- recreational and spiritual. Some even experiment, it seems, out of curiosity.
Alas, we all use drugs on a regular basis; caffeine, sugar, alcohol, nicotin, fat, whatever. I wouldn't think of the socially unacceptable drugs as much different (with the exception of heavy drugs that literary melt your brain, of course).
We all self-medicate, to some degree, once in a while.
it should be legal i think but smoking anything is bad for lungs
fdr and nanny state had to remind us ,so they made it illegal
Interesting reading on this topic...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...id-nutt-sacked
The scientific evidence and the political agenda on drugs have been out of alignment on several points for quite some time.
Senseless.
Marijuana and/or it's active component THC is linked to a variety of things that may or may not be undesirable: infertility in males, testicular cancer(also in males...), vomiting, excessive bathing, bone loss, memory deficit, damage to the developing brain, increase in pain duration, less chance of getting married(especially for females), anticancer effects on human brain cancer cells.
As for the desired euphoria, it is due to it's neural activity, as THC, and all cannibinoids, are neural transmitters. Our body makes it's own cannibinoids, and we get them in our diet, they all have the same effect as THC, except that we get them in much lower volumes from other products.
As with any neural transmitter, there is danger with getting too much and too little. You can overstress your nerves, which can cause permanent damage, and addiction.
The "munchies," or more precisely the stimulation of specific nerves that aid in digestion, can lead to impulsive eating disorders and thus malnutrition.
memory problems can lead to impulsive behavior in general, and can make it hard to remember the negative things that pot(and other activites) does (or easier to forget, depending on your perspective) giving less motivation to quit.
I'm thinking of starting a youtube debate about it, once I get dideocam
What is? The sacking or the article?Senseless.
I would suppose the sacking. It was clearly politically motivated.
I would suppose there's a difference when it comes to age and abuse. Would you say that in the right dose, THC can prove to be mostly beneficial? As in for example a therapy for diseases, it does prove to be useful, as I understand it. Could you also use it as a recreational drug - given you don't abuse it - and still get benefits from the drug? Compared to alcohol and nicotine, how harmful is it?
My venture through the scientific literature has given me pros for cannabis, if used properly, and cons for abuse and age. I'm not too sure, however, how easy it is to abuse the drug, and how hard it is to gain benefit from it.
I'd assume there are many factors, just like most things in bio-chemistry.
"Would you say that in the right dose, THC can prove to be mostly beneficial?"
No, I don't know enough about it to assert any such vague generalizations.
November 6th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Since you ask, here's my 2cents worth: if I were king of the universe, I would ban alcohol, yet make grass legal. The number of alcohol related problems - liver scerosis, alcoholism, drunk-driving, agressiveness, etc.etc. far outweigh any down side to marijuana. Frankly, I cant think if any reason to label grass as 'dangerous': it does not lead to harder drugs, people tend to get mellow, not agitated or aggressive,...you've heard all these arguments before I'm sure.
The pesticide argument is ludicrous; even outdoor grown grass is rarely sprayed, as the 'farmers' have bigger problems than worrying about aphids! Smoking a pesticide laced leaf - tobacco for example, will not diminish the chemical's harmful effects. But I digress, as most grass is grown indoors, particularly in Canada and the Netherlands. spray residue is a non-issue.
The dutch have one of the lowest rates of hard drug usage in the world, yet pot is tolerated (not legal, as is commonly believed). So, to wrap up this rant, no, I dont think it's 'bad', any more than coffee or the odd glass of wine. It is not addictive, while both the afore-mentioned drugs are.
Nuff said.
If I was king of the world, I'd have social scientists advise me as to what natural scientists research have found on the subject, and how different laws would effect the kingdom, before deciding what to legalize/criminalize.
If I was the king of today's world: I would decree that more research needs to be done before I decide.
November 6th, 2009, 07:19 PM
In practice, that's just what Vancouver police do. Drinking & drunkenness in public parks they answer harshly. A gaggle of pot tokers, though, get the blind eye... or even approval. I think police are relieved to find people using grass instead of something else i.e. hard drug addicts and violent offenders have no love for marijuana.
EDIT: have no love for
[quote="marcusclayman"]If I was king of the world, I'd have social scientists advise me as to what natural scientists research have found on the subject, and how different laws would effect the kingdom, before deciding what to legalize/criminalize.
If I was the king of today's world: I would decree that more research needs to be done before I decide.[/quote
Just how much more 'research' is needed to prove the evils of alcohol ? While I agree with you that much is still unknown about the body's response to grass, we DO understand the damage alcohol can cause on the hepatic and central nervous systems, not to mention fetal alcohol syndrome, physical addiction, the thousands that die every year in traffic accidents caused by DUI.... If you need to learn more, a quick Google on alcohol + health turns up a lot of info you may wish to look at. That goes for marijuana as well, of course.
FWIW, I believe the one (marijuana) is a lesser danger than t'other.
By the way, what is a 'social scientist', and why do you need them to tell you what natural scientists (another term I am unfamiliar with) have learned ?
November 16th, 2009, 04:43 PM
In practice, that's just what Vancouver police do. Drinking & drunkenness in public parks they answer harshly. A gaggle of pot tokers, though, get the blind eye... or even approval. I think police are relieved to find people using grass instead of something else i.e. hard drug addicts and violent offenders have love for marijuana.
While I have not been to Vancouver, (not counting a drive-through on the way to the docks for a cruise), I have lived in the Netherlands in the distant past, and have been back recently. Amsterdam has a similar attitude: although technically illegal, coffee shops, shroom and hash shops are everywhere. As long as you enjoy their wares Inside, or in Vondle park nearby, the law just doesn't bother you. Nice system.
A pot café did run awhile though technically illegal. Long enough the neighbourhood appreciated that it kept dealers off the street corners. Finally police had to close the place, since they must enforce even laws they believe stupid. To compensate, they moved the community police office out of a nearby park where pot users gather. They needn't deter what they can't see.
To the shark
There is absolutely no doubt about the harm alcohol does. In terms of drugs, the worst is nitocine and the second worst is alcohol.
And what the hell has that got to do with the price of fish!!!
There is absolutely no way governments can control either tobacco or alcohol. The lax regulations related to both are in recognition of this simple fact. Ban alcohol, and every second home will have brew fermenting and possibly a still in operation. People love alcohol so much they will make it regardless. Ban tobacco, and there will be illegal tobacco farms everywhere they can be hidden. Trying to control of limit either one, practically speaking, is uttelry pointless. The current system, in which they are regulated and taxed, is by far the best.
On the other hand, smoking marijuana is also destructive. Not as much as tobacco, but only because smokers of marijuana smoke less. Gram for gram, marijuana is every bit as harmful as tobacco if not more so. Pot is harmful. The authorities that ban it believe they are able to limit its use. If so, they are doing a good thing. If not, then the bans are pointless.
Methamphetamine does less harm than alcohol, but only due to the smaller numbers using it. On a per person basis, it does much, much more harm. If the authorities can limit its use, I am fully in favour. Of course, IF is a very big word......
This seems to assume that the ban results in a decrease in use with no associated costs to society. In fact, there are major costs to society; increased violent crime, prisons full of non-violent drug offenders, police time and resources being spent going after drug users instead of investigating/preventing crimes that have victims, and so on. You might get some marginal reduction in the harm that pot does to society, but it seems to me that the harm of the ban's side effects more than cancels out any benefits.
There's the key really. It's about the balance of cost to benefit. In that respect, it appears that prohibitions works no better today than it did when they banned booze in the States. They practically made the mob with that move. They made the drugs cartels with this one.This seems to assume that the ban results in a decrease in use with no associated costs to society. In fact, there are major costs to society; increased violent crime, prisons full of non-violent drug offenders, police time and resources being spent going after drug users instead of investigating/preventing crimes that have victims, and so on. You might get some marginal reduction in the harm that pot does to society, but it seems to me that the harm of the ban's side effects more than cancels out any benefits.
Personally, I think marijuana should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. That is, legalised, regulated, and taxed. We certainly cannot stop the illegal trade, so we might as well make it legal, and try to get some control over it, and get some taxes off it.
Methamphetamine is different. It is so destructive we need to jail every bastard who is involved in its manufacture and trade.
I think the problem is that people will go ridiculously out of their way to enforce a rule that they think is "right," even if enforcing the rule ends up causing far more harm/inconvenience/expense/whatever than if they simply dropped the rule. Although everyone always tries to explain why pot should be illegal by saying it's bad for society in various ways, the truth is that many people who support the ban are supporting it because they think pot is just wrong and fundamentally immoral. The "rational explanations" about harm to society are really just their justifications for banning something that they want to ban for emotional/moral/religious reasons.
we do get taxes off of it, in the form of fines, IE, crime tax
The associated court/prison/law enforcement/etc. costs are much larger than any income from fines.
Beat me to that one! Of course, the cost of maintaining the ban on marijuana is astronomical; how many thousands are in your jails, caught with few joints ? Cheech Martin (or was it Tommy Chong) was charged with something ridiculous as he was selling bongs on the net !The associated court/prison/law enforcement/etc. costs are much larger than any income from fines.
Reminds me of something I saw on the tube; during the 70's, Nixon wanted to once and for all 'prove' how toxic mj was. He commissioned a multi-million dollar government run study...once completed, they handed him a book-sized report. He asked whether or not it proved what he wanted to prove, and when told it did NOT, and in fact, they could find no evidence of harm strong enough to even equate it with tobacco, he simply tossed the report in the nearest circular file! Now, there was a waste of money!
Please provide some citations
btw, I was joking in my previous post, but now I'm curious
Sure,no problem Marcus. -> (I had a feeling you were being sarcastic, but it's difficult to show any kind of emotion when texting).
March 21, 2002 - Washington, DC, USA
More Than 13.2 Million Americans Have Been Arrested on Pot Charges Since Congress Rejected 1972 Policy Recommendations
Washington, DC: Friday marks the 30-year-anniversary of a 1972 federal commission report advising Congress to remove criminal penalties on the possession and nonprofit distribution of marijuana. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (a.k.a. "the Shafer Commission"), appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, formally made its recommendation on March 22, 1972.
"Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the report's authors, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration no longer be an offense."
Despite the commission's recommendations, Nixon and Congress ignored the report. Since then, more than 13.2 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, including some 735,000 in 2000 - the last year for which federal data is available.
see more at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5097
Here's another:
The Nixon White House tapes from 1971-1972 demonstrate that the foundation of the modern war on marijuana was Nixonian prejudice, culture war and misinformation. CSDP's Doug McVay spent several days at the National Archives listening to the Nixon White House tapes to find conversations about drug policy, especially regarding the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse ("the Shafer Commission"), appointed by President Nixon. He found: Nixon blaming calls for marijuana legalization on Jews;
..More importantly, Nixon made clear several times that he wanted a report which supported his views and 'tough on crime' policies, no matter what the facts might be. To his credit, Governor Shafer delivered instead an honest report, with conclusions based on all the evidence -- even though at the time he was being considered for a federal judgeship (needless to say, he didn't get it).
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm
There's an interesting documentary on how the US gov has been misleading Americans for decades about the 'dangers' of marijuana.. I just can't remember its name
Hope this helps.
I meant specifically, citations supporting that the fines from pot charges accrue less than "associated court/prison/law enforcement/etc. costs" use
preferably in the form of unadulterated cost-benefit analysis, if at all possible(but as it is you providing the support, it's up to you what form it takes)
Personally, I don't think the issue is really whether it is bad for you or not, but whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to smoke it or not, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I don't think anyone would argue that cheeseburgers aren't bad for you, but does that mean we should make them illegal? I don't think so.
Indeed, some things are better changed, not through forceful legislation, but subtle alienation.
You can find a vast amount of info and analysis by simply googling "cost of the war on drugs" or something similar.
I'm not asking for what evidence exists that supports your claim, but what reason you have for making the claim, that is, I'm affirming the burden of proof, which is on you, the claimant.
I'll research it when I feel like it, but I'm not going to do your work for you.
It is not my "work" to do, because it's not my job to convince you of anything. Sorry, I'm not trying to have a formal debate with you here. If you don't believe me, I don't really give a damn. If you're really curious, the information is easy to find, and I already told you how to find it. If you're not curious about it and don't feel like googling the issue, that's fine too.
It is your responsibility, whether you want it or not. It's not your job to convince me of anything, but it is your job to provide reasons for things you claim when asked in a respectful manner(it's not about me and you, making it so is a strawman fallacy I believe). Imagine what kind of world we'd live in if people didn't need to support their views... well, I guess you don't have to imagine too hard, you can just look around.
Some of us respect eachother's time though. You have accessed the resources before, if you know them to be valid, so you know where to look. It would simply take you less time to provide them, but instead you'd rather take time to reject your responsibility, and pass it off as though it's something I'm asking you to do for me, and not something that is generally agreed in any scientific community, in this case a scientific discussion community, that it is the claimants job to support a claim; and something I am asking you to do for anyone who may happen to read this discussion.
For me to do research, to have a understanding of the real costs of the "drug war" would take longer than just doing a search. I would have to read various results of that search, compare and contrast with opposing viewpoints, raise and discuss questions, and then I might be confident in my understanding of it. Until then, you already seem pretty confident in your understanding, whats the point of studying something and sputtering off bits like "this costs more than that" if your not willing to explain what you have taken the time to learn?
that's more of a rhetorical question, what I want to know is, why do you not want to provide me with the sources you've learned this information from? it makes me wonder if your confident in their validity.
Sorry, but I don't consider it my responsibility to provide citations on demand for anything and everything that I say. I have exactly zero responsibility to educate you or spoon-feed you information.
Also, if you're interested in how things are actually done in scientific communities, it's common to throw out a reference like "See Farnsworth's 1997 book The Mathematics of Quantum Neutrino Fields," and leave it at that. If you want to know about it, go read the book and good luck understanding it. Don't have the book? Aren't sure which chapter is relevant? Haven't taken the necessary math classes to understand it? No one cares. Yeah, authors have to provide references, but the burden of actually combing through them and understanding them is on the readers; the author isn't expected to spoon-feed everyone detailed explanations of everything he says. Telling you to google it is a lot kinder than many actual scientific citations I've seen. My "google it" response was basically telling you how to pull up an online bibliography. Would you feel better if I told you to see Miron's 2005 study on the issue?
But to answer your question more specifically, I wasn't trying to avoid giving you information when I said to google it; I was making a serious attempt at informing you that the information was easy to find and that you probably wouldn't have any trouble getting to it. But then you seemed to take on an obnoxious, self-righteous air and started going on about burdens of proof, as if I actually had some responsibility toward you, and my good-will quickly evaporated.
Whatever, you can frame it however you want. I know how to use a search engine, I prefer eccelio as it searches many search engines at once. Suggesting that I do, because you don't want to, is not a good intention, but a lazy one.
Marcus, data of the sort you're looking for can be found in numerous studies- but there's a very good summary (with plenty of primary references and raw data) in the book Pot Politics. The chapter you'd be most interested in with regards to Scifor and CShark's arguments is Chapter 2, which was written by economist Jeffrey Miron. He's been cited many times in the mainstream media and appears well-respected amongst economists.
To summarise some of his recent work, (reported in the mainstream media here and here, and I'm sure elsehwhere) Miron estimated that legalisation of the full spectrum of illegal recreational drugs would result in a law enforcement saving of $44.1 billion per year taking into account enforcement costs and revenue from fines. On top of that, he also estimated that taxation of those drugs would yield a revenue of $32.7 billion per year, assuming drug sales do not increase due to legalisation (which they probably would).
Also of interest might be Eric Schlosser's Reefer Madness, an essay which argues for decriminalisation of marijuana via several lines. Not as strong on the evidence, but convincing none the less.
Thank you, information is good, but accountability is better.
One thing they didn't mention is restitution, I don't know if this is included under "fines"
Does marijuana love you in return?
(this was in response to a post that has since been removed/deleted in which someone expressed their love for marijuana.(if you couldn't determine that on your own)
i dont know much about it but as far as i knw the negative side-effects when abused over a long period of time. It can cause depression and make you addictive. However, if you're not a heavy user, you're more likely to have positive side-effects where THC, in the right dose, can have quite potent anti-depressive effects. The most unhealthy way of consuming marijuana is through smoking (which is also the most common). However, if you use a vaporizer, it won't be much of a problem.
Lung cancer...
It's the reason I stopped...
Also it was pullin' down my VO2MAX javascript:emoticon('8)')
mike, how much is necessary before you consider someone a "heavy user"
also since you would have to have chronic depressive symptoms in the first place for marijuana to have anti-depressive effects, then could marijuana not distract you from finding a permanent solution to your problem(s)?
perhaps through diet and exercise(of course you can consider THC a dietary supplement, you cannot justify consuming it in such large amounts as is common in today's commercial marijuana, never mind the higher end product.)
anyway, defining things as "negative" and "positive" is a cop out from having an actual argument to back up your opinion. There is much that has both negative and positive effects, pointing out one doesn't eliminate the other.
January 12th, 2010, 11:14 PM
I haven't any experience about using this herb... But i hear about marijuana, It can cause bad effects if you use it always... ^^, And they said that you become hungry if you smell the smoke or use this marijuana...
What bad effects have you heard about marijuana causing?
Who says these things about bad effects and becoming hungry?
I disagree. Happiness is like money, you need some in order to make some.
This goes back to the point I made above. People who are depressed are not likely going to have the motivation to exercise or eat properly. If the depression can be eased even a little bit, then someone might have more motivation to exercise or be around friends and family, which will make them even happier.perhaps through diet and exercise.
"Happiness is like money, you need some in order to make some. "
this depends on what you mean by money
money, which usually means currency(exchanged wealth) but can mean wealth(exchanged and otherwise) as well
anyway, money is not necessary to "make"(aquire?) more currency, but wealth is, to the contrary most currency is exchanged for goods and service, which are not money
where do you think the first money came from? what about the first moment of happiness?
i think you need nutrients to be happy, and that if you want to use economic terminology, I think that it's more accurate to say: nutrients are to capital what behavior is to marketing
"People who are depressed are not likely going to have the motivation to exercise or eat properly."
So you are implying causation. Depression causes lack of motivation which causes lack of action, no?
Have you evidence that lack of action is not actually a/the causative factor in this?
Ok defintion of a drug is a substance that is used as a medicine or narcotic.
Sugar AKA Glucose is necessary for cellular respiration which gives us ATP which we use to do EVERYTHING. Also fat AKA fatty acids make up or cellular membranes and for energy storage. These are necessary.
March 15th, 2010, 03:14 AM
I can support you on this, it is clear that tobacco and alcohol have much fatal effects when compared to weed. 1 of the heaviest reasons it is illegal is because of the "high" effect is gives the consumer but isn't getting a nicotine fix a "high as well? Even alcohol intoxication is an altered state of mind, so many die from these substances vs weed but yet it is accepted greatly by many that it's OK to drink but not to smoke weed?Since you ask, here's my 2cents worth: if I were king of the universe, I would ban alcohol, yet make grass legal. The number of alcohol related problems - liver scerosis, alcoholism, drunk-driving, agressiveness, etc.etc. far outweigh any down side to marijuana. Frankly, I cant think if any reason to label grass as 'dangerous': it does not lead to harder drugs, people tend to get mellow, not agitated or aggressive,...you've heard all these arguments before I'm sure.
The pesticide argument is ludicrous; even outdoor grown grass is rarely sprayed, as the 'farmers' have bigger problems than worrying about aphids! Smoking a pesticide laced leaf - tobacco for example, will not diminish the chemical's harmful effects. But I digress, as most grass is grown indoors, particularly in Canada and the Netherlands. spray residue is a non-issue.
The dutch have one of the lowest rates of hard drug usage in the world, yet pot is tolerated (not legal, as is commonly believed). So, to wrap up this rant, no, I dont think it's 'bad', any more than coffee or the odd glass of wine. It is not addictive, while both the afore-mentioned drugs are.
Nuff said.
March 15th, 2010, 03:19 AM
This depends on the type smoked or ingested. In today's medical marijuana scene, the product is cultivated in order to answer to specific patient needs, some will make u sleep while others stimulate energy, some may make u hungry and some won't. The point is they culture strains to fit to specific needs.
Your statements on possible long term effects are correct but it should be added that this can vary depending on the person. The vaporizer provides a more efficient and cleaner burn compared to just using a lighter to burn it but in my opinion I do not see too much of a difference with the regular lighter burn unless a zippo is used which heightens your chances or inhaling fluid and fire.
a heavy user is some one that can smoke a half once blunt to themselves without literally vomiting HAHA!
I like the way u think!I think the problem is that people will go ridiculously out of their way to enforce a rule that they think is "right," even if enforcing the rule ends up causing far more harm/inconvenience/expense/whatever than if they simply dropped the rule. Although everyone always tries to explain why pot should be illegal by saying it's bad for society in various ways, the truth is that many people who support the ban are supporting it because they think pot is just wrong and fundamentally immoral. The "rational explanations" about harm to society are really just their justifications for banning something that they want to ban for emotional/moral/religious reasons.
to above quotation by refugee
are you suggesting that people who use pot don't have any personal reason for it to be legalized?
No, and I don't see anything in my quoted block of text to indicate that, so I'm not sure where you pulled that idea out of...
I'm sure that many people who use pot want to legalize it for personal reasons rather than because of any sort of objective cost/benefit analysis. However, the cost/benefit analysis does seem to be on their side.
I was just making sure. I was not implying that this is what you meant, but the way you framed your statement made me wonder if it was not what you were getting at.
Anyway, I am not an expert on the subject. Do you think there has been a sufficient number of cost-benefit analysis done, and also a sufficient number of physiological experiments done to exclaim to everyone educated and otherwise that it's ok to smoke pot?
Have multiple double blind studies been done by unbiased organizations, that show what effects are to be expected from using pot in variable doses, variable times per day, and for variable periods of time?
Are the stereotypical side effects of binge eating, mood swings, submissive tendencies and memory loss baseless?
Hello Marcus, no these things are not baseless at all, but it is good points to keep in mind that it all depends on the person. Yes for the majority rule these things are the standard interpretation for it occurs very often in tons of cases so many learn to view it as 'typical", but then for a better detailed look it must be taken into consideration on a case by case basis :-D
I doubt that such studies could ever be done in our current system. You are never going to get permission to do double-blind marijuana studies on human subjects. The best we can do is try to figure out how and why marijuana use correlates to other health problems in the general population.
I doubt that they are baseless. I simply don't think that the cost of "protecting" people who don't want to be protected from such effects is worth it.Are the stereotypical side effects of binge eating, mood swings, submissive tendencies and memory loss baseless?
But in the future more studies can be conducted with double blind measures on humans, it easy as 1 2 3!. I can walk around downtown and ask people to volunteer and im betting they will say a big YES. Folks from all walks of life smoke weed, even the company executive fires up some ganja, and that's just speaking with all honesty leave the BS behind.I doubt that such studies could ever be done in our current system. You are never going to get permission to do double-blind marijuana studies on human subjects. The best we can do is try to figure out how and why marijuana use correlates to other health problems in the general population.
I doubt that they are baseless. I simply don't think that the cost of "protecting" people who don't want to be protected from such effects is worth it.Are the stereotypical side effects of binge eating, mood swings, submissive tendencies and memory loss baseless?
You wouldn't have a problem in Vancouver, Canada. Even (discrete) public use is legal. We only maintain a technicality regarding dealing in quantity, for crowbar into large gang operations. Honestly I'd be surprised if these sorts of studies aren't already done at BC universities with student volunteers.
I would be astounded if any researcher was able to get such a study past his university's institutional review board.
You'll like this: Female Occasional and Regular Marijuana Users Needed for UBC Study (UBC Vancouver)
21% of females on campus are marijuana users. The call was posted on Vancouver Craigslist two weeks ago, to get a broader sample than just students toking outside the building... in which - you're right - smoking is not permitted.
LOL and vibrators, good golly. Do you suppose they just count the giggles per minute?
Wow, this conversation suddenly became active again! behold the power of questions...
scientia: you suggest that group studies are limited in their application and that scientists need to look at particular cases to gather more info on marijuana... I disagree, I think that more group studies need to be done with different parameters. Looking at a particular person doesn't tell you anything until you compare it to another person. The more people you compare the more you can deduce.
Refugee: "You are never going to get permission to do double-blind marijuana studies on human subjects."
Never is a long time. In the mean time, why is it too dangerous to test, but not too dangerous to prescribe?
"I simply don't think that the cost of "protecting" people who don't want to be protected from such effects is worth it."
Well, it seems that one of the possible very common effects of pot is the willingness to put up with things one otherwise wouldn't put up with. THC effects personality and morality, the parts of the brain correlated with reward-punishment. So these people "who don't want to be protected" might only feel that way because of the drug, and would otherwise want to be protected. It's very difficult, no, impossible to say. But double blind studies would help us induce something slightly more reasonable than "Screw it, cost benefit says it's not worth it, even though we have yet to define 'it'"
also scientia: there are a lot of people willing to participate in the study, but it would be important to test the effects of THC and pot on different groups, including those who have never used it befored
Well, it's certainly possible that at some point in the future attitudes will change to permit such a study. But I don't think you could possibly get it approved in the current climate. Doing any sort of human experimentation involving chemicals or drugs is hard to get approved. Experimentation with a schedule 1 drug is nearly impossible, unless you have some reason to suspect it will be of major medical benefit to the people taking it.
Groups studies will indeed increase the knowledge we have on the Marijuana issue, but to allow a deeper intricate perspective i think case by case studies need to be given priority as well just as how group studies are recognized in such degree.
Did you avoid answering my question on purpose?Well, it's certainly possible that at some point in the future attitudes will change to permit such a study. But I don't think you could possibly get it approved in the current climate. Doing any sort of human experimentation involving chemicals or drugs is hard to get approved. Experimentation with a schedule 1 drug is nearly impossible, unless you have some reason to suspect it will be of major medical benefit to the people taking it.
You mean "why is it too dangerous to test, but not too dangerous to prescribe"? The answer is because institutional review boards are boarderline crazy, and often very political. The semi-serious joke that drug researchers like to use to explain institutional review boards is that if they thought peanut butter cured headaches, they probably wouldn't be able to test it because the board would say that the odds of someone dying from a peanut allergy is too great.
| « Ironic Medicine | A diet that will remove hair, nails, and weight. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
