2 ms·

I'd politely disagree, unless you're a PhD in chemistry and botanics, you probably have no idea what you're putting in your body :)

GordonS 11y ago
Technically, yes, of course that is correct. But regardless of how rational it seems, some people just want to avoid heavily refined pharmaceuticals that have gone through chemical processes, regardless of how 'benign' we are (currently) told these are.
- ucaetano 11y ago
  "heavily refined products that have gone through chemical processes" You mean Vodka? :)
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  So I assume you eat only raw plants you grew yourself and raw meat from animals you raised and killed yourself then?
  - GordonS 11y ago
    Now you're just being silly. I said 'some people' - I didn't say that was my own opinion. Personally, I don't have a problem with refined drugs in general, but I do prefer to keep things (both food and drugs) simple, when it is possible, practical and effective to do so.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      I'm calling you out for your ridiculous rhetoric, indirection, and appeal to nature fallacy. "heavily refined," "chemical processes," (oh no! Not the maillard reaction!!!!), "a plant," "solvents."
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
One does not need a PhD in chemistry or botanics or horticulture, or genetics or anything else to know, for example: * This cannabis was produced without the use of a potentially toxic pesticide. * This cannabis has been treated with no other adulterant. Even knowing very little about the specific properties of the cannabis one consumes, one can have a high degree of confidence that it will not cause harm if they have grown it themselves.
- grhino 11y ago
  The way we know the harm a material (plant byproduct, animal byproduct or synthetic compound) will do to a human body is by its history of ingestion by humans. Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis. Yes, and the reason we have to rely on that informal history is a political one, which has resulted in the avoidance of primary research on the effects of cannabis consumption.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Sure you do. You're putting heated Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica in your body, containing cannabinoids that react with receptors in your nervous system. Despite the prohibitions, you probably have ample anecdotes that the side effects are generally increased appetite, decreased motivation, possible paranoia, and conversations that are pointless to anyone that is not high. Even someone with multiple PhD degrees in the relevant areas of study isn't necessarily going to know the complete catalog of molecules involved, nor know which of those are biologically active in humans and which are inert, nor know which molecules agonize or antagonize which receptors, or whether they promote or inhibit uptake or reuptake of related neurotransmitters, nor know the short-term or long-term effects on any particular individual. There are only a few people that actually study the plant in enough detail to know those things. This is, for the most part, because the federal prohibition has stifled scientific inquiry, by limiting both the availability of the plant to prospective researchers, and restricting the grant money far beyond what is normal for pharmaceutical research on other plants flagged for further investigation from traditional herb lore. Politics over science. Most people don't know any more about it than ginseng tea, or chewed coca leaves, or even coffee. They don't have to. Eventually, we got to the point where instead of drinking boiled aspen bark tea for headaches, we started swallowing acetylsalicylic acid tablets, because that was determined to be the active analgesic ingredient. But before that, the tea still worked without anyone knowing exactly why, but with more side effects and less reliability. Using the raw plant--especially when harvested from the wild rather than cultivated under controlled conditions--caused less certainty in the dosage. The pills allowed us to take just enough to relieve our pain without causing more damage to our stomachs than was strictly necessary. But in the case of marijuana, people tend to enjoy the side effects, and nothing in the plant seems to result in health-threatening effects, even from massive overdoses and shockingly frequent usage. So there's no rush to identify active ingredients, except by some twisted impulse to stop sick people from enjoying their treatment, or to prevent people from being able to produce their own medicines outside strict authoritarian supervision. And different effects can be produced by selective breeding, like the strain for people who need to use a lot of medical marijuana to manage their symptoms, but don't want to be stoned or high all the time. You can't really do that with a drug that doesn't have a genome.

GordonS 11y ago

Technically, yes, of course that is correct. But regardless of how rational it seems, some people just want to avoid heavily refined pharmaceuticals that have gone through chemical processes, regardless of how 'benign' we are (currently) told these are.

ucaetano 11y ago
"heavily refined products that have gone through chemical processes" You mean Vodka? :)
nommm-nommm 11y ago
So I assume you eat only raw plants you grew yourself and raw meat from animals you raised and killed yourself then?
- GordonS 11y ago
  Now you're just being silly. I said 'some people' - I didn't say that was my own opinion. Personally, I don't have a problem with refined drugs in general, but I do prefer to keep things (both food and drugs) simple, when it is possible, practical and effective to do so.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    I'm calling you out for your ridiculous rhetoric, indirection, and appeal to nature fallacy. "heavily refined," "chemical processes," (oh no! Not the maillard reaction!!!!), "a plant," "solvents."

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

One does not need a PhD in chemistry or botanics or horticulture, or genetics or anything else to know, for example: * This cannabis was produced without the use of a potentially toxic pesticide. * This cannabis has been treated with no other adulterant. Even knowing very little about the specific properties of the cannabis one consumes, one can have a high degree of confidence that it will not cause harm if they have grown it themselves.

grhino 11y ago
The way we know the harm a material (plant byproduct, animal byproduct or synthetic compound) will do to a human body is by its history of ingestion by humans. Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis. Yes, and the reason we have to rely on that informal history is a political one, which has resulted in the avoidance of primary research on the effects of cannabis consumption.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Sure you do. You're putting heated Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica in your body, containing cannabinoids that react with receptors in your nervous system. Despite the prohibitions, you probably have ample anecdotes that the side effects are generally increased appetite, decreased motivation, possible paranoia, and conversations that are pointless to anyone that is not high. Even someone with multiple PhD degrees in the relevant areas of study isn't necessarily going to know the complete catalog of molecules involved, nor know which of those are biologically active in humans and which are inert, nor know which molecules agonize or antagonize which receptors, or whether they promote or inhibit uptake or reuptake of related neurotransmitters, nor know the short-term or long-term effects on any particular individual. There are only a few people that actually study the plant in enough detail to know those things. This is, for the most part, because the federal prohibition has stifled scientific inquiry, by limiting both the availability of the plant to prospective researchers, and restricting the grant money far beyond what is normal for pharmaceutical research on other plants flagged for further investigation from traditional herb lore. Politics over science. Most people don't know any more about it than ginseng tea, or chewed coca leaves, or even coffee. They don't have to. Eventually, we got to the point where instead of drinking boiled aspen bark tea for headaches, we started swallowing acetylsalicylic acid tablets, because that was determined to be the active analgesic ingredient. But before that, the tea still worked without anyone knowing exactly why, but with more side effects and less reliability. Using the raw plant--especially when harvested from the wild rather than cultivated under controlled conditions--caused less certainty in the dosage. The pills allowed us to take just enough to relieve our pain without causing more damage to our stomachs than was strictly necessary. But in the case of marijuana, people tend to enjoy the side effects, and nothing in the plant seems to result in health-threatening effects, even from massive overdoses and shockingly frequent usage. So there's no rush to identify active ingredients, except by some twisted impulse to stop sick people from enjoying their treatment, or to prevent people from being able to produce their own medicines outside strict authoritarian supervision. And different effects can be produced by selective breeding, like the strain for people who need to use a lot of medical marijuana to manage their symptoms, but don't want to be stoned or high all the time. You can't really do that with a drug that doesn't have a genome.