4 ms·
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 decisio
by 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 agoOne 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.