4 ms·

I guess you missed the articles that say marijuana has positive effects? There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the pos

by bcook 10y ago

I guess you missed the articles that say marijuana has positive effects? There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the positive and, similarly, I ask why are you focused on the negative? There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. :)

Alupis 10y ago
> I ask why are you focused on the negative? Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes. These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different? > There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  The claims of harmlessness are based on decades of widespread use without even silly overblown anecdotal stories of people being harmed (he took a giant hit and jumped out the window!)
- bcook 10y ago
  You are being too absolutist. Nothing is "harmless". I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision. My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose? Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    One group that self-medicates is people with psychosis. People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population. Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication. That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds. This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population. It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire. So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people. When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea. People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis. [1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.

by bcook 10y ago

Alupis 10y ago

> I ask why are you focused on the negative? Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes. These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different? > There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.

oldmanjay 10y ago
The claims of harmlessness are based on decades of widespread use without even silly overblown anecdotal stories of people being harmed (he took a giant hit and jumped out the window!)
bcook 10y ago
You are being too absolutist. Nothing is "harmless". I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision. My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose? Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.
- DanBC 10y ago
  One group that self-medicates is people with psychosis. People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population. Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication. That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds. This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population. It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire. So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people. When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea. People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis. [1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.