Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 102
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Cannabis may cause strokes.

  1. #1 Cannabis may cause strokes. 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Smoking marijuana associated with higher stroke risk in young adults | American Heart Association

    Research has shown a likely doubling in risk of strokes among young people when they smoke cannabis. It is somewhat unusual for a person under 55 to have a stroke. However, a large number of such cases were individuals who had smoked cannabis not too long before their stroke. A control sample had half the number of cannabis smokers.

    It appears that cannabis causes blood vessels to the brain to constrict, according to Dr. Barber, who carried out the study.

    Of course, a single study is not proof. I would expect there to be more studies in the near future, which will confirm or deny these results. But add this result to the well known psychiatric consequences of cannabis smoking, and the other known side effects, and it should make people think twice about the cannabis habit.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    So double the risk is half of 4 times, which is the risk for tobacco smokers. Does this mean marijuana is twice as safe as tobacco? Smoking anything is still gross.


    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I would be surprised if smoking cannabis was as bad as smoking tobacco, for the simple reason that a cannabis smoker will normally smoke very few joints in a day, while a tobacco smoker may smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes per day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    As Skeptic pointed out, one reason cannabis is "safe" compared to tobacco is because people smoke tobacco much more frequently, say 20-30 times a day. Most people who smoke marijuana will only do it around once a day or even less frequently. I have seen an increasing amount of evidence of potential adverse effects of marijuana over the past few years, yet some will still claim that it is some miracle substance that can be consumed in unlimited quantities and still not cause any problems.

    I am not sure of this, but is research in the area somewhat limited because of legal issues?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I am not sure of this, but is research in the area somewhat limited because of legal issues?
    Absolutely. There are hundreds if not thousands of oncologists who will accept, or even discreetly recommend, their patients taking marijuana to alleviate the nausea associated with chemotherapy. Firstly nausea itself is distressing, but it also means that a patient is weaker if they can't get nourishment from food they refuse to eat or can't keep down when they do eat - and the oncologist's main aim is for the patient to survive. Better nourishment means better chances of recovery.

    But no one's been able to do any real work on how much it helps, how its effects compare with other anti-nausea products, whether it's more, or less, effective with some chemo drugs than others or with some forms of cancer than others. Let alone whether it's less or more effective when smoked or taken as a drink or in food or as a tablet. And without that basic guidance to go on, they can't really work on turning the active ingredient(s) into forms that they might administer as injections or drips.

    And that's just for cancer. It's also known, anecdotally, to be effective in treating various forms of epilepsy, and tics/ movement disorders, and cerebral palsy, and some mental illnesses. But without research being permitted, there's no way to test its effectiveness or compare it other treatments or to target the conditions or the patients most likely to benefit. Most important of all, without research there's no way to calibrate effective doses appropriate for the various conditions and to identify the balance that all drugs have to come to - between efficacy and the possibility of side-effects, like strokes. Off the top of my head, there'd need to be an entirely different approach to acceptable doses and calculating risks where you're hoping to keep someone alive through a few months of chemo as against the consequences for someone who needs lifelong treatment to manage their epilepsy or cerebral palsy. And no one can get approval to do such research on any large scale.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I am not sure of this, but is research in the area somewhat limited because of legal issues?
    Absolutely. There are hundreds if not thousands of oncologists who will accept, or even discreetly recommend, their patients taking marijuana to alleviate the nausea associated with chemotherapy. Firstly nausea itself is distressing, but it also means that a patient is weaker if they can't get nourishment from food they refuse to eat or can't keep down when they do eat - and the oncologist's main aim is for the patient to survive. Better nourishment means better chances of recovery.

    But no one's been able to do any real work on how much it helps, how its effects compare with other anti-nausea products, whether it's more, or less, effective with some chemo drugs than others or with some forms of cancer than others. Let alone whether it's less or more effective when smoked or taken as a drink or in food or as a tablet. And without that basic guidance to go on, they can't really work on turning the active ingredient(s) into forms that they might administer as injections or drips.

    And that's just for cancer. It's also known, anecdotally, to be effective in treating various forms of epilepsy, and tics/ movement disorders, and cerebral palsy, and some mental illnesses. But without research being permitted, there's no way to test its effectiveness or compare it other treatments or to target the conditions or the patients most likely to benefit. Most important of all, without research there's no way to calibrate effective doses appropriate for the various conditions and to identify the balance that all drugs have to come to - between efficacy and the possibility of side-effects, like strokes. Off the top of my head, there'd need to be an entirely different approach to acceptable doses and calculating risks where you're hoping to keep someone alive through a few months of chemo as against the consequences for someone who needs lifelong treatment to manage their epilepsy or cerebral palsy. And no one can get approval to do such research on any large scale.
    To add to this, from what I've seen (not much), cannabis can be used to effectively treat nausea in chemotherapy patients. However, the patients are much more likely to quit the treatment due to adverse side effects compared with current medications, as was demonstrated by this study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And there needs to be much more work with much larger / more representative sample sizes to tease out all the distinguishing features.

    Cannabis, like any other drug, will never be the exactly right treatment for each and every possible patient. The treating oncologists and their patients would be better off if they could predict in advance which patients with which conditions being treated by which chemotherapy drug/ combinations were most/ least likely to benefit and most / least likely to suffer adverse effects from which method of administering which doses of a cannabinoid.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    I don't believe cannabis is nearly as harmful as tobacco, but breathing in the smoke of burning *anything* probably isn't going to do anyone any favours.

    They should prepare cannabis leaves like tea leaves and make it a hot drink.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    They should prepare cannabis leaves like tea leaves and make it a hot drink.
    Not often favoured as a hot drink as far as I know.

    Saw a program on medical marijuana a few years ago. The people drinking it (rather than eating in a brownie or similar) were preparing it as a smoothie. Can't remember whether the person I picture in my memory operating the blender was suffering from cerebral palsy or epilepsy or some other disorder. But he and his family were amazed at how effective it was as a treatment.
    astromark and Ninja Pancakes like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    About 10 or so years ago when I was living in the UK I had my first (and only) experience of cannabis cookies. (They were made with Hashish and not actual leaves.)

    Having never had them before, I wasn't really expecting them to do anything except make me feel a bit dizzy and giggly.

    I ate two and about half an hour later I lost the ability to form coherent thought. Unfortunately the cookies themselves weren't very nice and made me a feel a bit ill, they were very sickly sweet.

    I doubt I would ever bother trying cannabis again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    I live in the State of Washington, it's legal here. Correlatable data on cannabis should be happening soon here and in Colorado.
    I have never in my entire life heard a single stroke reference from within stoner culture, nor actually witnessed one. Admittedly that anecdote is not evidence, but just saying. I've been there for literally thousands of happy stoneings, anywhere from seated on a couch to snowboarding hard all day, and not one stroke witnessed. Nor do I know of any partakers who have had a stroke.

    As for the study;
    Quote Originally Posted by Study
    But the association is confounded because all but one of the stroke patients who were cannabis users also used tobacco regularly.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To GiantEvil

    As I said in the OP, a single study is not proof. But neither can it be dismissed as readily as you wish. Further work is needed. Until and unless that extra work confirms or denies the results, it is worth being cautious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    So... Some Amish family has supposedly fled the country because their court ruled that their hospital be granted limited guardianship over their ten year old daughter.
    The child has Leukemia.
    The hospital began treating her with Chemo. You know how that goes...
    Well, the parents didn't like the side effects of the chemo and decided that they wanted to try "alternative medicine," (nyuk nyuk nyuk) instead.
    The hospital, supposedly fearful of the childs health, petitioned the courts to allow them custodianship in order to ensure she gets treatment.
    Not an easy case to sort out and political opinions on such abounds.

    Clincher: The family claims that the child is doing much better on the Alternative Herbal Cancer Treatment.
    <coughcoughbullshitcough>
    The father claimed that it should work if it is Gods Will...

    Here's the deal...
    There is no clinical evidence in regards to the efficacy of Canabis as a viable treatment for epilepsy, diabetes, corns on your feet or whatever other snake oil salesmanship. No Clinical Evidence means just that- There is no evidence.
    Although being stoned might just help a person forget they ain't feelin' too hot...

    Anecdote Does Not Equal Evidence. After all, people tell anecdotes about many home cures, U.F.O.'s, ghosts and church miracles.
    Anecdotes are as worthless as an ejection seat in a helicopter.

    Now, I'm not opposed to canabis being used to treat ailments any more than any other drug out there, including codeine and Jolly Rogers. Hey, even Snickers cures hunger, right?
    Yet, the Canabis Craze seems to make people very open to suggestion about Anecdotal claims and claims of treatment for such a vast array of ailments to make it the most wondrous drug ever. Supporters get very dismissive of anything that suggests that smoking pot might not be so great for your health.
    Smoking is bad...m'kay?
    M'kay.
    If it's going to be used, Clinical, not Anecdotal evidence is required. And that evidence should support its viability and functionality as well as its side effects.

    I mean, hell... Thalidomide was a wonder drug, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Anecdote Does Not Equal Evidence.
    And until we could extract and precisely measure doses of acetylsalicylic acid, we had to rely on people saying that willow bark was good stuff for headaches.

    We can't do that with cannabinoids and people's reports of using them for particular purposes while there's a group of big blokes backed by a big war on drugs standing in the way saying you can't even test it. I'm absolutely certain that some of the claimed good results will turn out to be due to something other than the use of cannabis. I'm equally certain that there will be some valuable therapeutic uses for a few conditions other than nausea for some patients suffering from a variety of conditions.

    But we won't know any of that with any confidence unless and until enough appropriate clinical trials are done.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Anecdote Does Not Equal Evidence.
    And until we could extract and precisely measure doses of acetylsalicylic acid, we had to rely on people saying that willow bark was good stuff for headaches.
    And, currently, lots of people tell anecdotes claiming homeopathy works wonders.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But we won't know any of that with any confidence unless and until enough appropriate clinical trials are done.
    Exactly.

    In the meantime, Anecdote Still Does Not Equal Evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    guess will have to look at the actual study...it's a pretty small number if the article is right.

    "“This is the first case-controlled study to show a possible link to the increased risk of stroke from cannabis,” said P. Alan Barber, Ph.D., M.D., study lead investigator and professor of clinical neurology at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. “Cannabis has been thought by the public to be a relatively safe, although illegal substance. This study shows this might not be the case; it may lead to stroke.”The study included 160 ischemic stroke/TIA patients 18-55 years old who had urine screens upon admission to the hospital. Among the patients, 150 had ischemic stroke and 10 had TIAs. Sixteen percent of patients had positive drug screens, mostly male who also smoked tobacco."

    So we have 160, of what 16% or about 25 tested positive and of those most also smoke tobacco.....

    And numbers probably to small to factor out dose of as a factor or co-factor if also used with tobacco.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So we have 160, of what 16% or about 25 tested positive and of those most also smoke tobacco.....
    And numbers probably to small to factor out dose of as a factor or co-factor if also used with tobacco.
    This sort of thing is what researchers are reduced to when the path to proper, well-designed research is blocked.

    Reminds me of the research project involving my husband. He spent a week in a coma with his core temperature reduced to 33C because ir's already been shown that this helps with recovery from brain injuries and heart attacks. The research was actually about the ambulance. They're trying to ascertain whether, and if so how much, there's a benefit from starting to reduce the patients' temperatures at the first point of possible treatment. There are several hospital/ ambulance services involved from a few countries. (Should point out that some places refused to do the randomised study. Even though there's no definitive research evidence or statistics to back it up, they believe - from experience alone, otherwise known as anecdote - that the benefits of initial treatment are so strong that it would be unethical to withhold the treatment from any portion of the patients affected.) And this is a randomised though only partially blinded trial - it should be pretty obvious to the ambos whether a pack of saline is or isn't refrigerated.

    Data from several hospitals in a variety of countries for several years would be needed to detect any definite link between cannabis and stroke or heart attack. This single analysis of a few cases with no possible chance of getting more than a glimmer of insight into cannabis effects is as much data as they can get their hands on. Much larger bodies of data would be needed to get any useful results, especially for problems like stroke when you need to parse out the influence of co-factors like alcohol use and tobacco use. And it's hard enough to get reliable information from patients about legal smoking and legal drinking, trying to get accurate information about frequency and length of use for an illegal item like cannabis would be a big obstacle.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is it really blocked, though?
    Is there any evidence that it's being blocked?
    Unlike Cocaine, Canabis has been medicinally legalized in several States in the USA. Yet, we know a great deal about cocaine. Opioids, as well.

    I think claiming that "da gubmint" is blocking canabis studies requires evidence, at this point. The claim is inconsistent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Is it really blocked, though?
    Is there any evidence that it's being blocked?
    Unlike Cocaine, Canabis has been medicinally legalized in several States in the USA. Yet, we know a great deal about cocaine. Opioids, as well.

    I think claiming that "da gubmint" is blocking canabis studies requires evidence, at this point. The claim is inconsistent.
    We probably don't know much about cocaine either for the same reasons:...it's more difficult to include in studies because an illicit substance, frequent users are less likely to come forward or participate in studies or volunteer for tracking and keeping records of their own usage....when it is studies it's a based on naturalistic experiments from prisons and addiction centers where are automatically biased towards people with the most problems.

    The background of the following study lays out these and other problems.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...-7517-7-15.pdf
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    What about studies on patients rather than addicts?

    Simply- lift the illegality of it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I think claiming that "da gubmint" is blocking canabis studies requires evidence, at this point. The claim is inconsistent.
    How many politicians or governments or government agencies do you think would be willing to be responsible for approving and/ or funding such research? And then be publicly known to have done so? And how many would you expect to duck for cover and discontinue approval/ funding once the publicity hit the airwaves?

    Same thing goes for hospitals, universities and their ethics committees.

    It's hard enough to get approvals and the funding for research on projects that no sensible person would have any kind of objections to.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    How many politicians or governments or government agencies do you think would be willing to be responsible for approving and/ or funding such research?
    Considering the magnitude of controlled substances currently used in medical research- I kind of don't think a lot of people put much thought into it.
    It would be one thing if they endorsed studies on the recreational usage, but to endorse studies for medical benefit does not often draw ire.

    That's a fallacy that appeals to doubt and emotion.

    You could be quite correct. But unless I see something to back up the appeals, I don't see any cause to say that the government avoids medical studies.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's hard enough to get approvals and the funding for research on projects that no sensible person would have any kind of objections to.
    Examples?
    Perhaps it's an issue of available funding over political agendas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It would be one thing if they endorsed studies on the recreational usage, but to endorse studies for medical benefit does not often draw ire.
    Oh OK. (I still think there'd be problems for a lot of people though. Ignorant people who want. to. know. how [insert picture of red-faced person thumping a desk] getting high can help various conditions. When getting high isn't even an issue, just as it isn't for people needing opioids for pain relief. They might get addicted eventually, but getting high was never the point and never happened anyway for most people in pain.)

    I suppose I was thinking more of studies like the one in the OP. When it's about the effects of recreational or non-medical drugs - alcohol, tobacco, cannabis - on general health matters like stroke, hypertension, heart attack.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It would be one thing if they endorsed studies on the recreational usage, but to endorse studies for medical benefit does not often draw ire.
    Oh OK. (I still think there'd be problems for a lot of people though. Ignorant people who want. to. know. how [insert picture of red-faced person thumping a desk] getting high can help various conditions. When getting high isn't even an issue, just as it isn't for people needing opioids for pain relief. They might get addicted eventually, but getting high was never the point and never happened anyway for most people in pain.)

    I suppose I was thinking more of studies like the one in the OP. When it's about the effects of recreational or non-medical drugs - alcohol, tobacco, cannabis - on general health matters like stroke, hypertension, heart attack.
    I don't really know.
    What I am aware of currently is that many controlled substances are not only bought by pharmaceutical companies but even grown, manufactured or developed.
    I think a lot of people are "ok" with this, even the die hard authoritarians.
    So when it comes to clinical studies on that, there should be several decades available.


    Sheepishly... I'll admit to not really doing much searching on it... I'm afraid of someone at my ISP getting an alert that I'm doing searches on lots of drugs, see... It's stupid, I know. But there it is.

    But for the problems with recreational use- I can see where you and Lynx_Fox are coming from. Those studies must be extremely difficult to not only conduct- but get any kind of meaningful data from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,439
    One of the previous universities I worked at is doing some research in this area:

    Cannabis-Based Medicines - Research Showcase Films - University of Reading

    I used to drink in the same bar as one of the PhD students from this lab and he used to joke he was one of the few students who wouldn't be sent down for buying dope...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    How many politicians or governments or government agencies do you think would be willing to be responsible for approving and/ or funding such research?
    Considering the magnitude of controlled substances currently used in medical research- I kind of don't think a lot of people put much thought into it.
    It would be one thing if they endorsed studies on the recreational usage, but to endorse studies for medical benefit does not often draw ire.

    That's a fallacy that appeals to doubt and emotion.
    As an argument of incredulity surfaces.....

    --

    Think about it?

    You want to conduct medical research on a drug or legal substance and it takes approval of the FDA as well as successful vetting through the National Science Foundation if Federal money is involved.

    You want to do something similar with cannabis, and you not only have to get approval from the FDA and probably the NSF, you also need approval from the ATF...an organization with absolutely no interest in exploring potentially beneficial effects, no internal organizational branches to even evaluate such proposals...and this doesn't even get to the State level. And who controls any cannabis that could be used in any study... the Drug Enforcement Administration...which even if research is allowed would severely limit the scope of research.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/he...uana.html?_r=0
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Actually, both of yours is as much an argument of incredulity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Actually, both of yours is as much an argument of incredulity.

    A few questions asked....those answered and explained with peer review articles and yet another vacuous response and unconvincing argument...or rather no argument at all...lol.

    The reality is there are significant obstacles and restrictions to researching illicit drugs including cannabis.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    At one time, cocaine was legal in the United States and in Europe. The soft drink Coca-Cola was popular because of the coca leaves used in the initial formulation. It is still legal for limited prescription and is used medically, primarily in ENT procedures where its numbing and decongesting properties on nasal mucosa are very useful. It has been used also in TAC, a topical numbing preparation consisting of Tetracaine, Adrenaline (epinephrine) and Cocaine. This preparation was developed for use in emergency rooms to anesthetize wounds prior to cleaning and suturing. Really good for children and mentally handicapped individuals who simply can't understand, or sit still, for injecting a numbing medication. It's medical use is waning because newer medications are just as effective and aren't associated with the legal pitfalls surrounding cocaine.

    One derivative of tetrahydrocanabinol (the active ingredient in cannabis) is Marinol, a medication initially used in treating cachexia in AIDS patients and cancer patients. It has received more attention in the pain managment field recently. So, research has been ongoing, just not in the form of Cannabis. Understandable, since natural agent preparations are almost impossible to standardize. It is difficult to know how much beneficial agent is in the leaves, and what contaminants may be in them as well.

    FWIW,
    Clarissa
    Lynx_Fox and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by DogLady View Post
    At one time, cocaine was legal in the United States and in Europe. The soft drink Coca-Cola was popular because of the coca leaves used in the initial formulation. It is still legal for limited prescription and is used medically, primarily in ENT procedures where its numbing and decongesting properties on nasal mucosa are very useful. It has been used also in TAC, a topical numbing preparation consisting of Tetracaine, Adrenaline (epinephrine) and Cocaine. This preparation was developed for use in emergency rooms to anesthetize wounds prior to cleaning and suturing. Really good for children and mentally handicapped individuals who simply can't understand, or sit still, for injecting a numbing medication. It's medical use is waning because newer medications are just as effective and aren't associated with the legal pitfalls surrounding cocaine.

    One derivative of tetrahydrocanabinol (the active ingredient in cannabis) is Marinol, a medication initially used in treating cachexia in AIDS patients and cancer patients. It has received more attention in the pain managment field recently. So, research has been ongoing, just not in the form of Cannabis. Understandable, since natural agent preparations are almost impossible to standardize. It is difficult to know how much beneficial agent is in the leaves, and what contaminants may be in them as well.

    FWIW,
    Clarissa
    This has been my perception. I don't have strong knowledge on it all, though, as I do not work in medicine.
    But my understanding of it has been that this is rather old news- that the controls and legalities are a more recent issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Eighty years of restrictions.

    This is an article that breaks down the problems, even as avenues for research were opened during the 1980s.
    "By 1982, 31 states and the District of Columbia had passed legislation pertaining to medical marijuana, many of them establishing therapeutic research programs that allowed physicians to distribute the drug to patients enrolled in approved clinical trials. (However, because of the strict protocols involved in obtaining approval, only eight such programs became operational."

    As well as an example of how difficult that process could for legitimate research:
    "Because of this designation, biomedical investigators interested in including marijuana in their research must first obtain a special license from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and then apply for access to the supply kept by the National Institutes of Drug Abuse (NIDA) for research purposes. The challenges involved in obtaining the drug, along with political and financial considerations, have significantly dampened attempts to examining the potential use of marijuana as a therapeutic agent. For example, in the 1990s, both the DEA and the NIDA refused numerous requests by Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco who was interested in investigating the potential use of marijuana to counter the weight loss seen in individuals affected by AIDS-wasting syndrome. Though his study was reviewed and approved by several regulatory bodies, including the FDA, the DEA and NIDA’s decisions effectively blocked Dr. Abrams’ research for several years before finally approving it in 1998."

    https://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes...united-states/
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You say "eighty years of restrictions" but only give an example from the 1980's and 1990's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Though his study was reviewed and approved by several regulatory bodies, including the FDA, the DEA and NIDA’s decisions effectively blocked Dr. Abrams’ research for several years before finally approving it in 1998."
    So what were the results of his studies?

    Do the codeine/amphetamine based drug studies have similar troubles? Because these controlled substances are still well studied and established and yet- a person will struggle to buy Sudafed at WalMart these days.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The article says there was a total restriction before that point.

    "By the time Congress passed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, a bill that levied a fee on commercial transactions involving the Cannabis sativa plant, every state had laws in place that criminalized the general possession or sale of marijuana."

    Hard to do research if possession is criminalized. They then discuss the categorization under laws during the 1970s.

    Now you've been here long enough to know how things work. You have contributed virtually nothing to this thread other than name calling and expressing your doubts. You did ask a reasonable challenge about evidence that research was restricted and that evidence was provided. Yet instead of re-framing your argument, you've refused to again engaged in meaningful discussion or provide evidence to support your doubts.
    Posting "last," while providing no evidence is not compelling--and should be avoided in the hard science parts of the forum. So please stop this bad habit. This is an official warning.


    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 4th, 2013 at 01:05 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    It is supposed to be good for glaucoma....but no one had prescribed it for my severe advanced glaucoma.....and I don't smoke.....SO SOL I guess...did help nephew in chemo and my best friend and my BIL though
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Well, a cursory search on PubMed revealed 28 English-language clinical trials on synthetic cannabinoids as well as cannabis extract were published in the past 5 years. There were several other, more basic, research studies in animals and humans studying the endocannabinoid system (the receptors cannabis affects). So, while some sources, such as Lynx Fox's, suggest that direct studies on cannabis may be limited, research on the more general topic of cannabinoids is still quite active.

    Clarissa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    28 in 5 years is less than 6 a year.

    Considering the number of - potential - clinical applications, I'd say that's not many. Though, this may be one area where a rule that null or negative outcomes of research should be reported somewhere would be handy. It's one thing to have 20 or 30 published papers. It's another thing to know whether those reportable results came from 35 or from 135 projects.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Ahh, there's the rub. A paucity of negative/null outcome studies is a known problem in medical research. Oftentimes those are kept 'in-house' by the pharmaceutical companies. We know it skews the results, but trying to get access to those studies has been difficult for the 'powers-that-be' like the FDA, or even fellow researchers. Of course, until that research is freely available for review, it's impossible to know how badly the results have been skewed. A real buggar of a problem.

    Clarissa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You have contributed virtually nothing to this thread other than name calling
    This is an official warning.


    I did no name calling.
    It is not my obligation to provide evidence to support my skepticism but your obligation to provide evidence for your claims. Period.

    This "Official Warning" is dishonest (Claiming that I was calling names- I called no one in here names) and also politically motivated rather than scientific.

    I am a Skeptic and I will NOT accept an "official warning" for being skeptical. It's not a warning it is a personal attack. The Onus is on you to support your claims. The onus is not on me to Prove You Wrong.
    THAT is what should stay out of the Hard Science Threads.

    Drugs and controlled substances have been in use for medicine outside of generalized public ownership or legal use for many decades. I asked:
    "Do the codeine/amphetamine based drug studies have similar troubles? Because these controlled substances are still well studied and established and yet- a person will struggle to buy Sudafed at WalMart these days."
    You did not answer the reasonable question. Clearly, you have not provided enough evidence to be convincing.
    Last edited by Neverfly; December 4th, 2013 at 10:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Comment: NF you have reported the post wherein LF gave you a warning. That is the appropriate action to take when you disagree with a moderator action. The matter is now under consideration.

    It is absolutely not acceptable to respond to a moderator warning within the thread.
    You have done that here. I repeat that behaviour is not only not acceptable, but is against forum rules.

    Frankly, almost any other established member would receive a one day suspension from me for that blatant disregard of the rules. I am not applying that action here because I really cannot face another round of your disruptive, aggressive argumentative, anti-social, soul destroying claptrap, trying to defend your actions.

    So, just to make absolutely certain you understand:
    if you have an issue with this, or any other moderator comment or warning you report the post, or pm the mod, or pm another staff member. You do not comment within the pertinent thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    ...It is absolutely not acceptable to respond to a moderator warning within the thread. .
    Why?
    Fear it could turn into a shouting match?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    You should know better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is it being claimed that cannabis is exclusively blocked from research or that all controlled substances are?
    If it is exclusively cannabis- Why is it excluded?

    If it is all controlled substances- then why is there so much available data on Google Scholar (Bear in mind that Google is only a small percentage of what's out there.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You should know better.
    perhaps, 'tis the tone of the response?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To DogLady

    Kudos to you. You are a newcomer, and I am impressed with the fact that your posts are based on good science. That is so often not the case, and you deserve a rousing "well done".
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It is not my obligation to provide evidence to support my skepticism but your obligation to provide evidence for your claims. Period.
    Wrong. When you make a claim of skepticism and another offers evidence to support the opposite opinion. YOU have an obligation to either bring counter evidence forward to toss a bit of doubt on that evidence or some to continue to support your skepticism. If you can't do those, then simply restating your claim adds nothing and doesn't move the discussion. This is why the weak postings leave the impression they are more about getting in the last word than making meaningful discussion--it's not.

    You are correct I should have more precisely in the warning you received---when you claim a position is an argument of incredulity, you are in fact claiming it is illogical--I incorrectly characterized this as "name calling" when I should have simple said "accusatory of making a logical fallacy based on ignorance." My apologies.

    I am a Skeptic and I will NOT accept an "official warning" for being skeptical.
    You didn't receive a warning for being skeptical...you received a warning for not addressing, engaging or supporting your skepticism in the hard science portion--that is the meat of it.


    --
    For a splendid example of a neutral post which tends to counter the lack of research argument see Doglady's reference to PUBMed. There was a source, and a quantifiable number representing current research which was very easy to verify. No charges of logical fallacy. It was a pithy and truly excellent way to support that there is at least some current research going on and one that moved the discussion.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.
    Medical Marijuana
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    Our efforts to initiate medical marijuana research have been hindered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) since our founding in 1986. NIDA's monopoly on the supply of marijuana for research and the DEA's refusal to allow researchers to grow their own has paralyzed medical marijuana research, and for over 12 years MAPS has been involved in legal struggles against the DEA to end this situation.
    http://blog.norml.org/2010/01/27/why...E2%80%99s-why/
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    A spokesperson for the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) told The New York Times last week that the agency does “not fund research focused on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.” - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2010/01/27/why....WOzEIwdI.dpuf
    DEA faces federal lawsuit for blocking marijuana research | The Raw Story
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    Researchers hoping to study the medical benefits of marijuana are taking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to federal court for blocking access to the plant.
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-paleontology/
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    In the face of obstacles to marijuana research from both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology and one-time MacArthur Fellow is calling out the federal government on its obstruction of science.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan...earch-20130125
    Quote Originally Posted by ^
    quoting the DEA's statement that "the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies.... To date, such studies have not been performed."
    There were more, but my fingers are getting tired.
    Neverfly and astromark like this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I don't believe cannabis is nearly as harmful as tobacco
    From what I have read smoking pot is 2.5 to 3 times worse than smoking tobacco - with the caveat that most pot smokers smoke less often than tobacco smokers, so overall the _average_ marijuana smoker sees a smaller risk. However, on a 1:1 basis, marijuana is more dangerous than tobacco.

    but breathing in the smoke of burning *anything* probably isn't going to do anyone any favours.
    Agreed. The type of health risks (lung cancer, emphysema, stroke, heart disease) seem to match in both cases.
    astromark and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    I don't believe cannabis is nearly as harmful as tobacco
    From what I have read smoking pot is 2.5 to 3 times worse than smoking tobacco - with the caveat that most pot smokers smoke less often than tobacco smokers, so overall the _average_ marijuana smoker sees a smaller risk. However, on a 1:1 basis, marijuana is more dangerous than tobacco.

    but breathing in the smoke of burning *anything* probably isn't going to do anyone any favours.
    Agreed. The type of health risks (lung cancer, emphysema, stroke, heart disease) seem to match in both cases.
    I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that at least one of our sources has a bias somewhere.

    However I believe that Tobacco has addictive substances (such as Nicotine) which aren't present in Cannabis. Are there any addictive substances in Cannabis that I'm not aware of?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To DogLady

    Kudos to you. You are a newcomer, and I am impressed with the fact that your posts are based on good science. That is so often not the case, and you deserve a rousing "well done".
    If I remember correctly, she is an MD (or maybe DO), so it doesn't come as much of a surprise.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    However I believe that Tobacco has addictive substances (such as Nicotine) which aren't present in Cannabis. Are there any addictive substances in Cannabis that I'm not aware of?
    Tobacco is probably the most addictive drug we know of.

    Cannabis is certainly psychoactive - that's its attraction for most users. But there's only a little evidence that it is physically addictive in the way that opium based drugs or tobacco are. I've not even seen any work to show that it's more addictive for sub-populations in the way that alcohol is immediately and definitely addictive for some people with a particular physical susceptibility.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mat

    All the better. I still appreciate a bit of good sense in people's posts. We see too much of the opposite.

    On cannabis addiction. I have seen references in the past to serious cannabis smokers getting seriously addicted, to the point where they cannot give up. However, I agree it is not as bad as tobacco.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post

    On cannabis addiction. I have seen references in the past to serious cannabis smokers getting seriously addicted, to the point where they cannot give up. However, I agree it is not as bad as tobacco.
    But is that due to more "force of habit" than actual dependency?

    Although saying that, some people can get addicted to anything. Video games, shopping, gambling, and so on...
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    However I believe that Tobacco has addictive substances (such as Nicotine) which aren't present in Cannabis. Are there any addictive substances in Cannabis that I'm not aware of?
    Also agreed. Of course, marijuana has addictive substances (THC) that are not present in tobacco. It will be interesting to see what happens as legalization of marijuana removes a primary impediment for its use (illegality.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    There were more, but my fingers are getting tired.
    12 years, then.
    Although those are mostly blogs and editorials, I think it's a good start.
    Reading over several of them, this is what I can gather:
    That the illegality of it makes it difficult to acquire the drug in order to run clinical trials- Is that the issue? If so, I am curious as to how other controlled substance studies are carried out and what makes marijuana so different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Wrong.
    No. Not wrong.
    The onus is on the claimant and You Know It. You've warned and banned others for not following it.
    It is Not My Obligation to do your research for you. Period. I do not care about your obsession with accusing me of wanting the "Last Word."
    This disruptive side tangent arguing about whose job it is to support your claim is over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You are correct I should have more precisely in the warning you received---when you claim a position is an argument of incredulity, you are in fact claiming it is illogical--I incorrectly characterized this as "name calling" when I should have simple said "accusatory of making a logical fallacy based on ignorance." My apologies.
    Extremely incorrectly labeled it as "Name Calling."
    That is VERY misleading... Lynx_Fox...
    This is not the first time you've accused me of deeds I've not committed- it IS the first time, however you've acknowledged that you made the error- so I will take that as a step in the right direction, at least.

    But again, not seeing enough evidence to convince me that your claim is accurate does not place the onus on me to provide evidence to "prove you wrong."
    See above- I do not care if you think it's "Last Word" or not- You can make your own "Last Word" post in response to me if it makes you feel better...
    My statement stands: It is NOT the position of Hard Science to Prove Claims Wrong. It is the position of Hard Science to Support claims with evidence to show their accuracy.
    And this is not a hard Science, by the way- this is a Statistical Science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    For a splendid example of a neutral post which tends to counter the lack of research argument see Doglady's reference to PUBMed.
    Agreed, and while that technique may even be preferred, the onus is still not on others to do your research for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post

    On cannabis addiction. I have seen references in the past to serious cannabis smokers getting seriously addicted, to the point where they cannot give up. However, I agree it is not as bad as tobacco.
    But is that due to more "force of habit" than actual dependency?

    Although saying that, some people can get addicted to anything. Video games, shopping, gambling, and so on...
    Yeah, pretty much anything can be addictive. According to this article, about 9 percent of people who ever smoke marijuana become addicted. I'd guess that is much lower than the rate for tobacco.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    stuff
    Which part didn't you understand? "if you have an issue with this, or any other moderator comment or warning you report the post, or pm the mod, or pm another staff member. You do not comment within the pertinent thread."

    You just choose to continuously ignore how things are done around here. It all would have been easier by PM. And no need to go further after it was addressed in any case.

    See you in a few days so we can once again discuss your participation in the forum.

    --

    Getting back to the thread.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    stuff
    Which part didn't you understand? if you have an issue with this, or any other moderator comment or warning you report the post, or pm the mod, or pm another staff member. You do not comment within the pertinent thread.


    I'm sorry- as it was not moderator color and not as a warning, I replied to it as I would Any Other Post.

    On topic- Lynx_Fox, can you re-clarify:
    Are the clinical studies claimed as blocked in this thread referring to actual medicinal effects or to clinical studies about any effects of the drugs use?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post

    On cannabis addiction. I have seen references in the past to serious cannabis smokers getting seriously addicted, to the point where they cannot give up. However, I agree it is not as bad as tobacco.
    But is that due to more "force of habit" than actual dependency?

    Although saying that, some people can get addicted to anything. Video games, shopping, gambling, and so on...
    Yeah, pretty much anything can be addictive. According to this article, about 9 percent of people who ever smoke marijuana become addicted. I'd guess that is much lower than the rate for tobacco.
    In this article it specifically tries to address that point. Also find it interesting because I would have predicted some of those other substances to be higher, but our perceptions are often influenced by government supported misinformation to discourage their use.

    "Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive. It is much harder to quit smoking cigarettes than it is to quit smoking pot."

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...uana-addictive
    sculptor likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    All the points about cannabis' low addictive potential may be true, but I see a more fundamental problem with medicalizing marijuana. One of the tenets of evidence-based medicine is reproducibility of results, which requires standardization of the medicine being tested and use of it against placebo. Several studies of so-called herbal medicine preparations have found that the amount of active substance varies considerably from batch to batch (a good summary of such studies is The Herbal Minefield ) . Legalizing marijuana will not improve this. No one studying opiate derivatives sues to have the right to grow their own opium, then prepare their own tincture. For some odd reason, there seems to be a blind spot regarding marijuana. Researchers want to grow their own? Why? What are you going to do to be sure every test patient receives the same dose of active ingredient? Which physiologically active substance in marijuana is producing the desired effect? How can you be sure if you don't isolate and synthesize the chemical for testing? I don't see 'medical' marijuana as a true benefit for patients. I see it as a step backwards. What's next - Foxglove tea for heart failure?

    Clarissa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post

    On cannabis addiction. I have seen references in the past to serious cannabis smokers getting seriously addicted, to the point where they cannot give up. However, I agree it is not as bad as tobacco.
    But is that due to more "force of habit" than actual dependency?

    Although saying that, some people can get addicted to anything. Video games, shopping, gambling, and so on...
    Yeah, pretty much anything can be addictive. According to this article, about 9 percent of people who ever smoke marijuana become addicted. I'd guess that is much lower than the rate for tobacco.
    In this article it specifically tries to address that point. Also find it interesting because I would have predicted some of those other substances to be higher, but our perceptions are often influenced by government supported misinformation to discourage their use.

    "Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive. It is much harder to quit smoking cigarettes than it is to quit smoking pot."

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...uana-addictive
    Cocaine being only slightly higher than alcohol certainly surprises me, but the tobacco number doesn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To DogLady

    Kudos to you. You are a newcomer, and I am impressed with the fact that your posts are based on good science. That is so often not the case, and you deserve a rousing "well done".
    If I remember correctly, she is an MD (or maybe DO), so it doesn't come as much of a surprise.
    I'm a DO (Doctor of Osteopathy).

    Clarissa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    DogLady:
    Hi:
    Have you assigned a causal factor to your cancer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    DogLady:
    Hi:
    Have you assigned a causal factor to your cancer?
    My risk factors are family history and age. To consider them 'causal' requires a degree of certainty that doesn't exist. They are the 2 biggest know risk factors, which is why we (medical profession) recommend beginning screening colonoscopies at age 50, earlier if there is a strong family history. Other risk factors that have been suggested include heavy red meat diet, and high fat diet - these findings have not been replicated in the majority of studies.

    Clarissa
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman DogLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    89
    Oh, sorry to be so rude!

    Hi!

    Clarissa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by DogLady View Post
    Oh, sorry to be so rude!

    Hi!

    Clarissa
    You weren't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman EndlessEndeavor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    However I believe that Tobacco has addictive substances (such as Nicotine) which aren't present in Cannabis. Are there any addictive substances in Cannabis that I'm not aware of?
    Tobacco is probably the most addictive drug we know of.

    Cannabis is certainly psychoactive - that's its attraction for most users. But there's only a little evidence that it is physically addictive in the way that opium based drugs or tobacco are. I've not even seen any work to show that it's more addictive for sub-populations in the way that alcohol is immediately and definitely addictive for some people with a particular physical susceptibility.
    Actually, the physiology and psychopharmacology that has analyzed the addictive potential for nicotine is pretty consistent in its data; nicotine is not an addictive drug. I can't state that in such a polarizing manner, of course all things can become habitual and even compulsive, but nicotine has about the psychoactive potency of caffeine. If I stick a nicotine patch on you while you sleep, you will wake up and function through your day without ever saying " I now have the spontaneous urge to smoke an entire pack of camels", yet if I injected you with a clean, recreational dose of heroin, you may not become addicted immediately, but it is overwhelmingly likely that you would want to induce that sensation again. Tobacco addiction is largely attributed to oral fixations and classical conditioning, along with a learned cognitive process that affect and affirm repeated behavior.

    I apologize if it seems as though I'm attacking you over a minor issue not relevant to the discussion, but this misconception always strikes a very sensitive nerve with me. I have been addicted to heroin for four years of my life and I'm just half a year sober now at the at the age of 23. I have heard so many people compare the two drugs, and state that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. These people have no idea what it is like to have a crippling addiction. If you believe that tobacco harder to quit than heroin, I desperately urge you to compare the withdrawl symptoms of both and tell me how you feel. My friends had to get together and drag me all the way to Jacksonville, FL for the initial ten day withdraiwl period because I would get so sick that nothing would stop me from scoring a batch... just so I can sleep without waking up by asphyxiating on my own vomit, regain control of my bowel movements, and rid myself of the most dreadful dull, aching pain that seems to hurt anywhere pain can be felt. They knew they'd have to lock me in an apartment within a city that I had no drug connections in, with a dear friend who would care for me the best she could. It worked :-)

    Before I quit, I had lost my job, the love of my life, acquired an arrest record, compromised my personal ethics by literally becoming a liar and a theif, ruined people's trust in my word, and was once declared clinically dead. After I've quit, I'm still impacted by heroin abuse and the cravings are constant. There's even nerve damage left over with some very notable symptoms. With that, when I hear somebody tell me that they can't handle the nicotine patch, or that the nicotine gum tastes bad...then in the same breath, compare their addiction to mine... I can barely keep my composure intact.

    Sorry for the depressing rant, but here's some sources stating that nicotine isn't addictive:

    Effects of nicotine on the nucleus accumbens and similarity to those of addictive drugs

    The article within makes 28 citations of separate articles, studies, and publications that support the claim.
    RedPanda likes this.
    If at first you don't succeed, it wasn't meant to be. It's just a waste of time 'cause the unions just gonna take your money anyway, 'cause they jealous that we got an extra bone in our body that makes us smarter, but don't nobody in science care to acknowledge that, and you were an unwanted pregnancy, and you ruined my dirtbikin career, and get outta my sight you disgust me! You talking bout that one daddy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    this misconception always strikes a very sensitive nerve with me.
    I can understand how you come to that view.

    But there's a couple of things to bear in mind. Damage and danger are not the same thing as addiction. You could say similar things about alcohol addiction compared to heroin addiction. The big differences between heroin and substances like alcohol and tobacco are that 1) the "effective" dose is so much closer to the lethal dose and 2) alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated, so they're safer and the "doses" are consistent. You can die from alcohol poisoning - but that happens much more often with naive drinkers rather than with addicted alcoholics. For nicotine poisoning, you really have to get hold of some old-fashioned garden chemicals or make up the poison by extracting it from a pouch of tobacco rather than smoke or chew the stuff.

    As for the social or personal stress issues with tobacco, the same things happen with alcoholics and nobody says they're not physically addicted. (And oral fixation sounds far too much like a mouldy old relic of Freudianism than a modern interpretation of behaviours.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by EndlessEndeavor
    Sorry for the depressing rant, but here's some sources stating that nicotine isn't addictive:

    Effects of nicotine on the nucleus accumbens and similarity to those of addictive drugs

    The article within makes 28 citations of separate articles, studies, and publications that support the claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Above source
    Our results provide functional and neurochemical evidence that there are specific neurobiological commonalities between nicotine and addictive drugs.
    It appears that the study actually supports the idea of nicotine as addictive.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore Hymenophyllum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    170
    Neverending discussion about cannabis...
    He is numb from his toes down
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I would be surprised if smoking cannabis was as bad as smoking tobacco, for the simple reason that a cannabis smoker will normally smoke very few joints in a day, while a tobacco smoker may smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes per day.
    The most problems we hear of from smoking is that it is bad for the lungs and blood vessels. I have yet to hear people dying or any negative health issues from drinking cannabis as a tea or even bathing in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To stargate
    I agree that cannabis is not as bad as tobacco or alcohol. I would also agree that it is unlikely to be as bad if taken as tea or cookie. However, I am unaware of any research into the health effects of cannabis taken other than via smoking, and I would be reluctant to jump to conclusions until the data is in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To stargate
    I agree that cannabis is not as bad as tobacco or alcohol. I would also agree that it is unlikely to be as bad if taken as tea or cookie. However, I am unaware of any research into the health effects of cannabis taken other than via smoking, and I would be reluctant to jump to conclusions until the data is in.
    The data had better come from an independent body who will not in anyway benefit from the results of a survey. I can tell you there as been so many probes and inquires. I would think the best way to get reliable information is to question the people who use it in food, medicines, baths, and so on. There is so much positive information that does not get published.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Tut tut, Stargate. Not the scientific way.

    Centuries of experience has taught that the only valid data is that obtained by the most rigorous and accurate scientific measurements from experiments and observations. That data must be objective. Questioning people gives biased and subjective opinon rather than hard data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    [QUOTE=skeptic;501352]Tut tut, Stargate. Not the scientific way.

    Centuries of experience has taught that the only valid data is that obtained by the most rigorous and accurate scientific measurements from experiments and observations. That data must be objective. Questioning people gives biased and subjective opinon rather than hard data.[/QUOT

    Fair enough, but the cross section of people tested should come from users of cannabis in different forms, and places, or even countries. I think there is an objective revue needed, where positives and negatives are summed up to give a realistic use of the plant.
    Some institution give subjective views on different matters especially when kick backs are invoked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Medical statistics are a massive subject field. Does the swath of 'hear say' support the hypothesis ?
    A nephew of just 37 years is recovering from a brain bleed and while in surgery a stroke.. he's fighting for his life, and at 37 guess what; Yes a heavy cannabis user for many years.. and still I hesitate to make that connection. As I know of many young and not so young that smoke this weed regularly.. Without hard medical studies it's just hear say. I dare not judge. In the circles I move through cannabis use is not the evil that alcohol abuse is.. That is a fair statement.
    ~ I am of the view still that what you do is yours. While it does not effect me I have no care to interfere with what others do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    opium I believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ Because not all poppies produce the substance sought by some..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Because not all poppies produce the substance sought by some..
    That is correct cause I grow poppies in Cali! *laughing*...but certain "strains" have the opium substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    Did you know that the blue lotus is almost the same as cannabis? To top it all of, it's legal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    Medical statistics are a massive subject field. Does the swath of 'hear say' support the hypothesis ?
    A nephew of just 37 years is recovering from a brain bleed and while in surgery a stroke.. he's fighting for his life, and at 37 guess what; Yes a heavy cannabis user for many years.. and still I hesitate to make that connection. As I know of many young and not so young that smoke this weed regularly.. Without hard medical studies it's just hear say. I dare not judge. In the circles I move through cannabis use is not the evil that alcohol abuse is.. That is a fair statement.
    ~ I am of the view still that what you do is yours. While it does not effect me I have no care to interfere with what others do.
    Was there not extensive studies done on the plant? I think in Israel there were specific studies done, not sure anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ... In the circles I move through cannabis use is not the evil that alcohol abuse is.. That is a fair statement.
    ~ I am of the view still that what you do is yours. While it does not effect me I have no care to interfere with what others do.
    One of my sons became alcoholic. You can bet your bottom dollar that I interfered with that. I brought him home and spent 2 years in hell, pushing prodding controling, always with the care and compassion and tolerance of a fathers limitless love.............one fine day, He decided to become sober. Then another year of support. We became an alcohol free household----(almost, but, I did hide my whiskey).
    I would much rather have had him be a pot head-------------but I've known some people who got up in the morning and decided to smoke a joint-------and that was the most productive moment of their day.

    "All things in moderation" seems to be key.
    astromark and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ... In the circles I move through cannabis use is not the evil that alcohol abuse is.. That is a fair statement.
    ~ I am of the view still that what you do is yours. While it does not effect me I have no care to interfere with what others do.
    One of my sons became alcoholic. You can bet your bottom dollar that I interfered with that. I brought him home and spent 2 years in hell, pushing prodding controling, always with the care and compassion and tolerance of a fathers limitless love.............one fine day, He decided to become sober. Then another year of support. We became an alcohol free household----(almost, but, I did hide my whiskey).
    I would much rather have had him be a pot head-------------but I've known some people who got up in the morning and decided to smoke a joint-------and that was the most productive moment of their day.

    "All things in moderation" seems to be key.
    Sculptor, we cannot make laws to govern things like plants or things that are carried here from planets in the universe by all different kind of means. It is like throwing people in prison for collecting cosmic dust. People have to learn about these plants and know how to use and not abuse them. I know for sure about the studies of cannabis because I was on one of them, and let me tell you, it's all about politics and greed. I have just discovered that people are again reviving the growth of the blue lotus because it has similar properties as cannabis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    ...
    Sculptor, we cannot make laws to govern things like plants or things that are carried here from planets in the universe by all different kind of means. It is like throwing people in prison for collecting cosmic dust. People have to learn about these plants and know how to use and not abuse them. I know for sure about the studies of cannabis because I was on one of them, and let me tell you, it's all about politics and greed. I have just discovered that people are again reviving the growth of the blue lotus because it has similar properties as cannabis.
    I dislike all prohibitions. I find it abhorant that over 1/2 our prison population is in on drug charges. I personally feel that politicians who support such nonsense are the true present danger to society, and should be treated as criminals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    ...
    Sculptor, we cannot make laws to govern things like plants or things that are carried here from planets in the universe by all different kind of means. It is like throwing people in prison for collecting cosmic dust. People have to learn about these plants and know how to use and not abuse them. I know for sure about the studies of cannabis because I was on one of them, and let me tell you, it's all about politics and greed. I have just discovered that people are again reviving the growth of the blue lotus because it has similar properties as cannabis.
    I dislike all prohibitions. I find it abhorant that over 1/2 our prison population is in on drug charges. I personally feel that politicians who support such nonsense are the true present danger to society, and should be treated as criminals.
    Not to mention how we let them off the hook.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    In most places, I think you will find that the opium poppy is illegal. The decorative poppy that does not produce opium will be legal.

    The proposal has been made that the US government should, every year, buy up the entire opium output from Afghanistan, and thus deny it to the illegal drug trade. What do you guys think of this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    In most places, I think you will find that the opium poppy is illegal. The decorative poppy that does not produce opium will be legal.

    The proposal has been made that the US government should, every year, buy up the entire opium output from Afghanistan, and thus deny it to the illegal drug trade. What do you guys think of this?
    I say educate the people about the plants, and leave them alone. Some of these plants were used by people for thousands of years, we are still using them today in spite of the restrictions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    In most places, I think you will find that the opium poppy is illegal. The decorative poppy that does not produce opium will be legal.

    The proposal has been made that the US government should, every year, buy up the entire opium output from Afghanistan, and thus deny it to the illegal drug trade. What do you guys think of this?
    Why? It's not really our problem and it mostly messes up the cogs of economic competitors.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Why aren't Poppies illegal?
    In most places, I think you will find that the opium poppy is illegal. The decorative poppy that does not produce opium will be legal.

    The proposal has been made that the US government should, every year, buy up the entire opium output from Afghanistan, and thus deny it to the illegal drug trade. What do you guys think of this?
    Doubtful that would be a viable solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Interesting. I have always thought that the business of buying up the opium crop would have several benefits to the USA.
    1. It will minimise the opiate drug problem.
    2. It will create good will for the USA in Afghanistan
    3. It will make the USA the world leader in opiate derivative drugs.

    You guys disagree, which is fine. Can you elaborate on reasons why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    1. It will minimise the opiate drug problem.
    ...

    You guys disagree, which is fine. Can you elaborate on reasons why?
    One of the problems with drugs is that there is a world-wide demand for them.
    If you remove a supplier (by buying all their drugs), then a new supplier will appear, because you have not removed the demand.

    And if you succeed in reducing their supply at all, then the price of drugs will go up.
    This means that you would have to pay an increasing amount for Afghanistan's opium.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Actually, I think the opium would be very cheap, simply because you have eliminated all the middle men. While heroin sells for a massive sum on the street, the money paid to poor Afghani farmers is not much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Actually, I think the opium would be very cheap, simply because you have eliminated all the middle men. While heroin sells for a massive sum on the street, the money paid to poor Afghani farmers is not much.
    Efficient, cheap, safety standardized, bloodless drugs for people who were going to go do that anyhow. And drug lords trading in arms for agricultural equipment.
    That's just terrible!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Actually, I think the opium would be very cheap, simply because you have eliminated all the middle men. While heroin sells for a massive sum on the street, the money paid to poor Afghani farmers is not much.
    Opium is already cheap - the money currently paid to Afghani farmers is already "not much".
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    I don't know what it costs....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Why are they saying cannabis may cause stroke? I would like to know if the problem is not based on smoking and not on cannabis. The truth is most of these studies are made in the interest of some big entity from different areas of the tobacco and medical industry.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I doubt this subject has ANY actual science in it. Hear say and innuendo.. playing on fear not factually composed data.
    I am not so well informed of the actual numbers of habitual cannabis users having brain bleeds / strokes. Do we have a well compiled list of patients having admitted cannabis use ? No, I do not think so... Knee jerk actions always result in a saw knee.. not much else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The research leading to the idea that cannabis may cause strokes was done by reputable researchers, and pubished in a peer reviewed reputable journal. See the OP for details.

    That does not prove that cannabis causes strokes, but only an idiot would categorically say it does not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    The research leading to the idea that cannabis may cause strokes was done by reputable researchers, and pubished in a peer reviewed reputable journal. See the OP for details.

    That does not prove that cannabis causes strokes, but only an idiot would categorically say it does not.
    They may be reputable, but they are saying it may lead to stroke, it may lead to stroke if I drink too much coffee, or it may lead to over weight if I eat too much food. You see what I am getting at?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Stargate

    The suggestion that smoking cannabis may lead to strokes is based on solid empirical research. It should be respected, even if you reserve your belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why is cannabis illegal and alcohol legal?
    By question for you in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 243
    Last Post: August 16th, 2013, 02:35 PM
  2. What do we know about cannabis?
    By missarane in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: May 8th, 2013, 12:46 AM
  3. The Effects of Cannabis on a Person's Mind
    By Sacklome in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2011, 02:41 PM
  4. Legalising cannabis: the economic argument
    By Prometheus in forum Politics
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: December 9th, 2010, 12:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •