In other news, marijuana

Yooper

Bag the stock, not the barrel
PREMO 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.
I think now that use is "legal" you will start to see real data (as opposed to limited and/or extrapolated data).

As a result of the data points being more plentiful and more honest I think we'll get a better picture of the pro-s and con-s. And I think 10 years will be enough time to do so.

Again, not taking either side, only to say that currently the benefits are over-emphasized and the detriments under-emphasized. In other words, we are in the political phase of the discussion as opposed to the medical (i.e., we are not having an entirely honest conversation...). Sort of like public discussion of the three most addictive substances: nicotine, alcohol, and gambling where lots of cash/profit are at stake (so we over-emphasize the upside and seek to minimize the downside). (NOTE: with "addiction" being defined as BOTH craving AND withdrawal.)

One example of where I'm going with this line of thought: cannabis has long been touted as beneficial for sufferers of glaucoma. But "newish" research is showing that while it does help with ocular pressure there are downsides that perhaps outweigh its benefits.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
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.
I'm not saying there hasn't been any beneficial research. I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of the research is about the negative effects.
Government controls the supply (shitty supply from one source) and controls the funding for research.

The DoJ continually blocks research because it is federally illegal and if you want federal funding (or work for a university that receives federal funding) for the research, the DoJ has to approve the production.

In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences combed through 10,000 abstracts/studies since 1999 to look at what was studied. While it found some research from both sides, they state:
In addition to recommending more research on the beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use, the committee emphasized several challenges and barriers in conducting such research. For instance, specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, impede the advancement of research. Researchers also often find it difficult to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions. The committee said a diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research.
 

officeguy

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.
We had precious little research on THC and it's effects as the rules to do studies were so restrictive. And now, nobody in the industry wants to do rigorous studies as they all know that the benefits are very limited.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Just to add a data point (in support og my position that cannabis will not turn out to be as harmless as many (most?) believe):

Link: "Cannabis during pregnancy bumps psychosis risk in offspring"

I file this under the category of a "danger" many (perhaps?) would not consider.

--- End of line (MCP)
I'm going to reserve judgement here, it may be that a person who would use cannabis may be genetically predisposed to psychosis.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Just to add a data point (in support og my position that cannabis will not turn out to be as harmless as many (most?) believe):

Link: "Cannabis during pregnancy bumps psychosis risk in offspring"

I file this under the category of a "danger" many (perhaps?) would not consider.
There are cannabinoid receptors in multiple systems in the brain. Some of these systems deal with perception and emotion. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the brain develops and matures should not be suprised if we see permanent changes in those who decide to immerse their brain cells in the stuff.
 

Yooper

Bag the stock, not the barrel
PREMO Member
Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.

Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:

Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent.

Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.

The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national decrease of 13.6 percent.


Link: "EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"

--- End of line (MCP)
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.

Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:

Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent.
The problem with this oft-repeated statistic is that there's not really a way to determine if one is "on marijuana" at the time of an accident. The best that can be done is to do a blood test and determine if there's THC present and if there is, all that means is that the person consumed marijuana sometime in the past 30-45 days or so, depending on how heavy a user they are.

Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.
I don't think any state pursuing legalization should make pot legal for anyone under the age of 21. The adolescent brain is developing and we do know that heavy marijuana use during that time can cause development issues. No question there.

The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national decrease of 13.6 percent.
I'd be interested in more on this, but the article only linked to the top-level of the FBI UCR page. They didn't drill down to the stats from which these conclusions were drawn, and I don't have the time right now to dig into it. Given the way stats dealing with marijuana legalization are often skewed (see first paragraph), skepticism will be my default position.

Link: "EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"

--- End of line (MCP)
[/QUOTE]
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent.

Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.

The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national decrease of 13.6 percent.


Link: "EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"

--- End of line (MCP)
I think the science MUST be wrong. We have been told for decades that no one was refraining from using pot based on it being illegal, and that the usage numbers and consequences would not change one iota if it were decriminalized and made a legal substance.

Clearly the science on the results are wrong because of those assurances.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.

Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:

Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent.

Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.

The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national decrease of 13.6 percent.


Link: "EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"

--- End of line (MCP)
I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Added to the conversation as an additional data point. This speaks to several angles; one of which is my area of interest.

Here are three paragraphs from the middle of the editorial:

Meanwhile, the measurable consequences for states that have legalized recreational marijuana have been bracing. Take Colorado, which in 2012 joined Washington as the first states to do so. Since then, marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have increased by 151 percent, while overall state traffic deaths have increased by only 35 percent. Colorado emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 52 percent, while marijuana-related hospitalizations overall increased 148 percent.

Relevant to that psychosis study, which was conducted in Europe, U.S.-grown cannabis tends to be more potent than the stuff smuggled in from abroad, leading to worse health outcomes. Moreover, as access to pot becomes less difficult, adolescents, too, find it easier and cheaper to secure. This is a looming public health disaster. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry in February found that adolescent marijuana use is associated with significant increases, by up to 40 percent, in the risk of developing depression and suicidal behavior in adulthood.

The most compelling libertarian argument for legalizing weed has been that legalization would reduce crime by removing a black-market profit incentive along with attendant violence. Since legalization in Colorado, violent crime has increased nearly 19 percent (compared to the national increase of just 3.7 percent). Likewise, property crime increased approximately eight percent, compared to the national decrease of 13.6 percent.


Link: "EDITORIAL: Look at the science and stop the march toward legalized marijuana"

--- End of line (MCP)
From the editorial, “One comprehensive study — needing to be replicated, but still persuasive — concluded that “for every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization” That lines up with what Ive been looking for. The windfall tax increases, where are they? This suggests that the taxpayers are subsidizing the program which would not surprise me.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.
How so, by locking up “non-violent” criminals? By locking up a bigger share of minorities that broke the law?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
How so, by locking up “non-violent” criminals? By locking up a bigger share of minorities that broke the law?
Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.
how about cocaine? Fentanyl? Methamphetamines? Heroine? Opioids? Scopolamine? Crystal meth? Morphine?
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).
Locking up people should be reserved for those who do harm to others. Possessing a couple of ounces of pot or even selling it to other interested adults doesn't qualify under that criterion (if you are found selling it to an underage person you should be executed).
Then you would need to petition to get the laws changed. Illegal is still illegal, why is that so difficult for so many to grasp?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Then you would need to petition to get the laws changed. Illegal is still illegal, why is that so difficult for so many to grasp?
Not sure what your point is. I simply stated my opinion on why I believe it should be legal. Its harmful, just as large sugary drinks, smoking, drinking in excess and not getting enough fiber. But we dont lock people up for doing those things, only if they harm others.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
So, it's not about freedom or the war on drugs or anything else, it's about pot itself?
Accepting the downsides of the 'war on drugs' to keep a lid on the proliferation of opiates is worth it considering the danger from the drug category itself. For pot, its just not worth it.
 
Top