In other news, marijuana

BernieP

Resident PIA
Smoking marijuana, by contrast, was more likely to be linked with gastrointestinal issues,
I read a story on this a few years back. It was hard to diagnose at first because people didn't divulge their use of weed.
But a doctor noticed a link and I think now when people have a specific set of symptoms they know to ask.
There was actually a term for the disorder of the bowel caused by canabis.
 

TCROW

Active Member
Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.

Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.

Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.

It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.
 
Reactions: BOP
Wow, eating too many gummies and then freaking out because they can't feel their face. Hahaha, wimps. Wonder how many people went to the ER for alcohol related issues or who overdosed on opiates provided by big pharma during the same time frame?
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.
...

It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.
I'm not so sure.

Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.

My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....

Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure.

Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.

My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....

Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....

--- End of line (MCP)
Just curious, how does your grad work relate to cannibis consumption and it’s effects?
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
Just curious, how does your grad work relate to cannibis consumption and it’s effects?
My grad work is in mental health counseling (stated this way b/c I don't yet have my license or my PhD; though close, it is still "no cigar").

One of the "hot" topics these days is cannabis use.

My observation is that many are hoping what they would like to believe about cannabis actually ends up being true. My take is that, in the long run, they are going to be more disappointed than not; that benefits will not outweigh the downsides.

I'm not taking any side; just commenting on what I have seen in my mental health-related professional experience.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

TCROW

Active Member
I'm not so sure.

Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.

My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....

Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....

--- End of line (MCP)
For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.
I think we are in agreement here.

Cheers!

--- End of line (MCP)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
There was actually a term for the disorder of the bowel caused by canabis.
Pot pot?

I really couldn't care less if people want to hose themselves over by using drugs. Drop like flies, bitches - fewer Democrat voters. :yay:

Legalize it all and enact a law that says I can shoot anyone who bothers me because they're ****ed up. The drug problem will solve itself.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
For the record, I don’t necessarily think it’s benign or harmless. But I also don’t believe much of what my government tells me about it. I’d much rather live in a society that leaves these sorts of decisions up to the individual is all.
So long as the government doesn't take my money to house, feed, or otherwise assist the person who makes those decisions (either way), I agree with you. I'd like to see the government get out of those decisions, health care insurance decisions, and so many others.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.

Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.

Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.

It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.
Since you only participate to critique, try reading up some more on the topic. This is not a click-bait , it is more of an opinion piece written with clear annotations of where they sourced the material. Personally, I would like to see narcan removed from the market, maybe in time.....
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
So long as the government doesn't take my money to house, feed, or otherwise assist the person who makes those decisions (either way), I agree with you. I'd like to see the government get out of those decisions, health care insurance decisions, and so many others.
That is probably the biggest part. They get high ( or refuse to work, or...), they whine and cry, somebody gives them help via tax dollars not their own dollars.
 

TCROW

Active Member
Since you only participate to critique, try reading up some more on the topic. This is not a click-bait , it is more of an opinion piece written with clear annotations of where they sourced the material. Personally, I would like to see narcan removed from the market, maybe in time.....
Right. And their source is junk science which you did not read in its entirety. You scanned the headline, decided it aligned with your bias and went with it.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Right. And their source is junk science which you did not read in its entirety. You scanned the headline, decided it aligned with your bias and went with it.
I’d call you a dickhead, but I’m sure people like you without a prescribed x/y chromosome makeup prefer other terms. One thing for certain, your opinion and a rectum share the same smelly traits.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Junk article. Reefer Madness: the reboot.

Increased short-term psychosis and rapid heartbeat sounds like freaking out because either (a) they didn’t expect the potency to be so strong. When you process THC to make edibles, a different compound is formed and is around 8x stronger than if you smoke it; or (b) eating too much. Eating edibles take much, much longer to take effect. If you’re inexperienced, you might have a brownie and not feel anything after 45 minutes or an hour. You then assume it’s not very potent and jam a couple more brownies down your maw.

Scientifically, there’s also selection bias here as their sample is only people who ended up in the ER. In fact, the article mentions that edibles is a correlation with these observations only and not causative.

It’s a click-bait title. Try to read beyond the headlines.
You apparently didn't read the article. It cites the data from a peer reviewed article in the annals of internal medicine. Nothing clickbaity about it.

Maybe if you smoked less of the dummyweed you would understand what the article says.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure.

Let's revisit this in 10 years or so.

My bet is that we are going to find cannabis to be a far less benign substance than many hoped it would be; that the downside is going to be much more problematic than the touted benefits. Regardless of whether you're talking THC or CBD....

Could be wrong. Have been in the past, but this is what my grad-level research/interest is telling me....

--- End of line (MCP)
To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.

Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.
We do know there are some benefits. Again, people have to weigh the pros vs the cons. But one big benefit from the very beginning is getting cancer patients to regain their appetite, which improves their comfort during treatment and can lead to better treatment outcomes.

The other stuff about reduced inflamation in MS patients or pain reduction would need to be studied to determine if the effects are real, placebo, or non-existant.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.

Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.
There's been research on the benefits. It almost exclusively shows pot helps some medically in very limited ways, and that the help it provides can be done with other controlled medications much more effectively and efficiently.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
You apparently didn't read the article. It cites the data from a peer reviewed article in the annals of internal medicine. Nothing clickbaity about it.

Maybe if you smoked less of the dummyweed you would understand what the article says.
From the second link:
Out of 2,567 marijuana-linked visits to the ER in 2012–2016 at the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver
So, over 4 years, they had 2,567 "marijuana-linked" visits to the ER. Or, about 641 visits per year.

According to hospital utilization data, the University of Colorado Hospital saw over 84,000 total ER visits in 2013, over 96,000 in 2014, over 101,000 in 2015, and over 100,000 in 2016. (2012 data is not provided in the Colorado Hospital Association's 5 year data). The actual total between 2013-2016 was 383,395.
https://cha.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Databank-Utillization-Data-5-year-trends.pdf

So, (ignoring 2012 data) marijuana-linked hospital visits made up 0.67% of all ER visits (again, ignoring an entire year). If we assume the difference between 2013 and 2014 applies to 2012 to 2013, then 2012's ER visits would hypothetically be somewhere around 72,000 visits. Bringing the tyotal from 2012-2016 to about 455,395. Marijuana-linked events would then make up 0.56% of all visits.

78 total hospitals in Colorado, and they chose to study just one? Are the marijuana-linked visits lower in parts of the state that haven't adopted legalized marijuana? How many of these visits were due solely to marijuana and not other drugs (like pain killers, anti-depressant, or others)?
 
Last edited:
Top