8 ms·

Why Is It So Hard to Study Marijuana?

calafrax 9y ago
Interesting question which is then used to spread a lot of unsupported FUD about "second hand smoke" and imply that marijuana is as dangerous as Tobacco and state without any support whatsoever that the marijuana market will become dominated by mega-corporations the same as tobacco was.
- loeg 9y ago
  Marijuana probably will be dominated by mega-corporations. Same as alcohol or junk food. But that doesn't mean we can't regulate them (better than we have with junk food, at least). I think the author's fear of mega-corporations stems from analogy with tobacco and the implicit assumption that all marijuana use (smoking, vaping, eating) is as bad as smoking tobacco products.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Well, it's not crazy. Look at how effectively phillip morris axed vaping nicotine. They've effectively destroyed any chance of producing the stuff without several million in float per flavor. That is, the only ones left standing after the new DEA laws will almost all be owned by phillip morris members. It is easy to demonize a single thing (smoking) and regulate a whole bunch of things (anything with nicotine in it) related without a rational connection (is the vaped substance as carcinogenic as smoking?). I have full faith there will be anti edible campaigns.
    - Moocat87 9y ago
      Can you please elaborate? I don't think I've heard of this story, but when vaping started getting popular I wondered how the big tobacco companies would control the market. What do you mean by "several million in float per flavor"?
      - throwaway91111 9y ago
        This is my current understanding. I am not in the vape industry and i have not vaped for a while; this knowledge may be outdated or incorrect in the details of the PMTA process particularly. Alright, so first there were indie juice producers and vape boutiques. Nicotine and the liquid (some kind of glycerol, i don't remember off the top of my head) are quite cheap, so early on the money was made off unique flavors. Boutiques would sell hundreds of flavors at cheap places; regulation still looks good because you have no idea what you're vaping. Then phillip morris companies began selling vape kits at very expensive prices (for both their shitty electronic vapes and batteries and their juices). These are typically lines of 3-9 flavors in around 3 different nicotine levels, and frankly they're all pretty terrible. However, the major difference between the vape boutique and the gas station are three things: 1. Nobody at a gas station can help you vape the juice at a safe, sub combustion voltage. This is really key. 2. There's no variety of flavors, and they all suck, and the ecigarettes you can buy there are generally pieces of shit desiged to break. Some i've tried are configured at high voltages, leading to an acrid taste and a hugely increased risk of inhaling carcinogens. Bluntly put, a great way to convince smokers not to switch to vaping. 3. The boutiques source from indie vape juice makers. These people are often just a few people and the brands are often in flux. Now, for the most part i'm for regulation, and there are certainly questionable juices you can get. Off the top of my head, some of the flavorings combust at lower temperatures and are a genuine health concern; i've had my glass tubing cracked when trying out a new flavor. Scared the bejeezus out of me. However, the way the PMTA regulations are structured, you need to go through a roughly $300k, 500 hour process for each SKU you sell containing a liquid intended for consumption in an ecigarette. Now you need to assign different skus to every (brand, flavoring, flavor version, nictone level) liquid. So this means the indie juice makers, which might have 20 flavors at 6 nicotine levels each, would have to pay $186M to continue their product line. Accordingly, the market no longer optimizes for convenience and sells a lot of nicotine separately to combine at home with the one or two levels of nicotine they already have in their flavors. However, if you squint, you can see this is optimized for selling a shitty vaping product at gas stations with the money enriching tobacco companies. This is certainly going to put out of business pretty much every vape store i've talked to; the only ones that can survive need a massive amount of cash to pivot into a new product line (or recover from a suddenly absent supply list). If you look specifically at the laws just passed in California, this becomes more clear (not sure when these laws take effect, or if they already have): 1. Vape stores can't help you with hardware at all anymore. They literally can't show you how to change the battery on your own pen. 2. At vape stores, there is a flat $2 tax on every. Single. Item. I'm probably missing more details, especially on the california side of things. There are also probably some companies that will survive serving this market who aren't Phillip Morris, but i can't feel optimistic about their lobbying power. Finally, i just want to point out that people want to regulate the juices—and i certainly believe it's necessary for the industry to grow—but this style of "brute forcing" every SKU for such a huge cost of time and money seems like beureacracy at its worst, and it only hurts the consumer and small business owner. Furthermore the recent studies put out about "DNA damage" seem to cherry pick the worst possible result to support the conclusion that "vaping is just as bad as cigarettes" without, you know, actually comparing the health effects emperically on humans. I have no doubt vaping is harmful; i have every doubt it's anywhere near as harmful as cigarette smoke.
- overcast 9y ago
  Second hand smoke is dangerous, no matter what the source is. You're burning a fuel into carcinogens. Just because Marijuana might combust into something slightly less, doesn't mean anyone wants to breathe it.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Probably not as bad as diesel fumes, but no one gives a shit about those.
    - mwfunk 9y ago
      I don't know where you get the idea that "no one gives a shit about inhaling diesel fumes". That's an odd assertion to make.
      - collyw 9y ago
        In comparison to "ban smoking from parks", "ban electronic cigarettes", no one seems to give a shit. In fact I haven't seen any move to limit the fumes in any way.
    - overcast 9y ago
      Sure we do, that's why we have emissions laws, catalytic converters, and most of the population running on unleaded gasoline.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    And yet cannabis smoke does not seem to carry the same life expectancy and particularly lung cancer risk for light to moderate smokers. How do you square this with your understanding (mine, too) of smoke being inherently carcinogenic? Not to argue against your point; i'm a little confused why one would argue FOR second hand smoke. In any circumstance with smoke.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      It's a good way to derail the topic and preserve the status quo of illegal cannabis.
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  I don't smoke pot (I'm middle-aged parent with shit to do), but I do favor marijuana legalization as general policy. However, second-hand smoke is second-hand smoke. I wouldn't favor letting people smoke pot in any locations where they can't smoke tobacco. It's bizarre (and hypocritical) to me that the same demographic most in favor of marijuana also tends to be the most hostile toward public cigarette smoking. Bottom line, you hate second-hand smoke in one context because it mostly comes from rural working-class people... and you're fine with second-hand smoke in the other context because you wanna legally get high (or at least thumb your nose at the rural working-class people who tend to oppose it).
defterGoose 9y ago
"Dude, cuz this stuff is kickin' in bro!"
steventhedev 9y ago
I recall that NIDA had some rather nasty quality control issues (you'd think you'd be able to do better with a budget of 69 million dollars)[0]. To be honest, I could imagine at least some studies being rejected for lack of adequate supplies. Not much point in trying to do science if your samples are heavily contaminated. [0]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governmen...
- veli_joza 9y ago
  Moldy samples from the only approved source? What a waste of taxpayer money. They should be held accountable.
  - true_religion 9y ago
    They who? The farm? The scientists?
    - pboutros 9y ago
      I'm guessing the farm.
bluetwo 9y ago
I would have bet money Obama would have moved it to Schedule III before leaving office.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  I suppose he knew it would just be reverted by the next president? It is disappointing. Are any cases on their way to the Supreme Court yet?
  - smt88 9y ago
    The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
      - bluejekyll 9y ago
        Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        rhizome 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
doggydogs94 9y ago
Anybody who believes that inhaling any smoke is harmless is fooling themselves.
- wedowhatwedo 9y ago
  Anybody who believes that the only way to ingest Marijuana involves smoke is also fooling themselves.
- oliv__ 9y ago
  Life is harmful
- visarga 9y ago
  That would be true if marijuana were an issue separate from everything else. But in reality it's a choice between multiple types of harm - the lesser of them is better.
- mwfunk 9y ago
  When did anyone ever say inhaling smoke is harmless?
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    Read the first paragraph of the article.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
arca_vorago 9y ago
Quick first point, the proper term to be used should be cannabis. Back about 10 years ago I looked into this, the main problem was that the University of Mississippi was using very questionable methods to produce what they call "research-grade" cannabis. They were growing and then doing "thc extracts" (focused on just the thc content, not the other cannabinoids), and then spraying the concentrated THC onto what everyone who interacted with it called questionable "plant-matter", supposedly so they could more carefully control the THC percentages. In essence, for a long time, all the studies that were using UoM cannabis were actually not using natural cannabis, so it's no wonder many of the studies failed in general. Personally, after working in genetics for a while (just as a sysadmin), I came to the conclusion that the big guys like Monsanto just wanted to get all the IP/patents on the genomics so they could then do modified versions it would be illegal to grow on your own, and as soon as they get all that sorted, they will use their corruption of congress to get it legalized under their control. On a more constitutional note, I personally have come to the conclusion that the government primarily has abused the commerce clause (as it has in many other instances) in order to get to this level of control in the "drug war". On top that, as a general principle, under natural rights, I don't think either the federal or state government has any rightful power to restrict what I do or do not do with my body, whether that be drink coke, smoke cannabis, or eat lettuce. Therefore on princple as a constitutionalist, I have to admit the real proper move is to legalize drugs and treat them as medical issue. One of my primary criticisms of the recent recreational/legalization movement is that often in those states it is still illegal to grow your own. I think this is also unconstitutional, because there is no reason to require people to buy from someone else when they can easily grow it on their own. What's next, you may not grow your own tomatoes or jalapeno peppers? A overly dramatic rhetoric for sure, but you get my point. The other problem is that the drug war has essentially enabled pre-crime to become commonplace because that is what it is on it's face. We arrested that drug user because he is doing drugs and therefore will eventually commit a crime... One more thing, I get really tired of people who pop adderall all week, get drunk all weekend, and smoke cigars of acting all high and mighty about people smoking cannabis.
- dna_polymerase 9y ago
  Reading your conclusions here I come to the conclusion that you should focus on your sysadmin job.
itomato 9y ago
Have we forgotten what the problem of secondhand smoke actually is? Multiple pack a day indoor smokers keeping a space filled with carcinogens. Sitting next to someone with a joint of Certified Organic Top Shelf California cannabis at an outdoor Paul McCartney concert is an absurd comparison.
draw_down 9y ago
Pretty simple: cui bono?

Interesting question which is then used to spread a lot of unsupported FUD about "second hand smoke" and imply that marijuana is as dangerous as Tobacco and state without any support whatsoever that the marijuana market will become dominated by mega-corporations the same as tobacco was.

loeg 9y ago
Marijuana probably will be dominated by mega-corporations. Same as alcohol or junk food. But that doesn't mean we can't regulate them (better than we have with junk food, at least). I think the author's fear of mega-corporations stems from analogy with tobacco and the implicit assumption that all marijuana use (smoking, vaping, eating) is as bad as smoking tobacco products.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Well, it's not crazy. Look at how effectively phillip morris axed vaping nicotine. They've effectively destroyed any chance of producing the stuff without several million in float per flavor. That is, the only ones left standing after the new DEA laws will almost all be owned by phillip morris members. It is easy to demonize a single thing (smoking) and regulate a whole bunch of things (anything with nicotine in it) related without a rational connection (is the vaped substance as carcinogenic as smoking?). I have full faith there will be anti edible campaigns.
  - Moocat87 9y ago
    Can you please elaborate? I don't think I've heard of this story, but when vaping started getting popular I wondered how the big tobacco companies would control the market. What do you mean by "several million in float per flavor"?
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      This is my current understanding. I am not in the vape industry and i have not vaped for a while; this knowledge may be outdated or incorrect in the details of the PMTA process particularly. Alright, so first there were indie juice producers and vape boutiques. Nicotine and the liquid (some kind of glycerol, i don't remember off the top of my head) are quite cheap, so early on the money was made off unique flavors. Boutiques would sell hundreds of flavors at cheap places; regulation still looks good because you have no idea what you're vaping. Then phillip morris companies began selling vape kits at very expensive prices (for both their shitty electronic vapes and batteries and their juices). These are typically lines of 3-9 flavors in around 3 different nicotine levels, and frankly they're all pretty terrible. However, the major difference between the vape boutique and the gas station are three things: 1. Nobody at a gas station can help you vape the juice at a safe, sub combustion voltage. This is really key. 2. There's no variety of flavors, and they all suck, and the ecigarettes you can buy there are generally pieces of shit desiged to break. Some i've tried are configured at high voltages, leading to an acrid taste and a hugely increased risk of inhaling carcinogens. Bluntly put, a great way to convince smokers not to switch to vaping. 3. The boutiques source from indie vape juice makers. These people are often just a few people and the brands are often in flux. Now, for the most part i'm for regulation, and there are certainly questionable juices you can get. Off the top of my head, some of the flavorings combust at lower temperatures and are a genuine health concern; i've had my glass tubing cracked when trying out a new flavor. Scared the bejeezus out of me. However, the way the PMTA regulations are structured, you need to go through a roughly $300k, 500 hour process for each SKU you sell containing a liquid intended for consumption in an ecigarette. Now you need to assign different skus to every (brand, flavoring, flavor version, nictone level) liquid. So this means the indie juice makers, which might have 20 flavors at 6 nicotine levels each, would have to pay $186M to continue their product line. Accordingly, the market no longer optimizes for convenience and sells a lot of nicotine separately to combine at home with the one or two levels of nicotine they already have in their flavors. However, if you squint, you can see this is optimized for selling a shitty vaping product at gas stations with the money enriching tobacco companies. This is certainly going to put out of business pretty much every vape store i've talked to; the only ones that can survive need a massive amount of cash to pivot into a new product line (or recover from a suddenly absent supply list). If you look specifically at the laws just passed in California, this becomes more clear (not sure when these laws take effect, or if they already have): 1. Vape stores can't help you with hardware at all anymore. They literally can't show you how to change the battery on your own pen. 2. At vape stores, there is a flat $2 tax on every. Single. Item. I'm probably missing more details, especially on the california side of things. There are also probably some companies that will survive serving this market who aren't Phillip Morris, but i can't feel optimistic about their lobbying power. Finally, i just want to point out that people want to regulate the juices—and i certainly believe it's necessary for the industry to grow—but this style of "brute forcing" every SKU for such a huge cost of time and money seems like beureacracy at its worst, and it only hurts the consumer and small business owner. Furthermore the recent studies put out about "DNA damage" seem to cherry pick the worst possible result to support the conclusion that "vaping is just as bad as cigarettes" without, you know, actually comparing the health effects emperically on humans. I have no doubt vaping is harmful; i have every doubt it's anywhere near as harmful as cigarette smoke.
overcast 9y ago
Second hand smoke is dangerous, no matter what the source is. You're burning a fuel into carcinogens. Just because Marijuana might combust into something slightly less, doesn't mean anyone wants to breathe it.
- collyw 9y ago
  Probably not as bad as diesel fumes, but no one gives a shit about those.
  - mwfunk 9y ago
    I don't know where you get the idea that "no one gives a shit about inhaling diesel fumes". That's an odd assertion to make.
    - collyw 9y ago
      In comparison to "ban smoking from parks", "ban electronic cigarettes", no one seems to give a shit. In fact I haven't seen any move to limit the fumes in any way.
  - overcast 9y ago
    Sure we do, that's why we have emissions laws, catalytic converters, and most of the population running on unleaded gasoline.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  And yet cannabis smoke does not seem to carry the same life expectancy and particularly lung cancer risk for light to moderate smokers. How do you square this with your understanding (mine, too) of smoke being inherently carcinogenic? Not to argue against your point; i'm a little confused why one would argue FOR second hand smoke. In any circumstance with smoke.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    It's a good way to derail the topic and preserve the status quo of illegal cannabis.
StevePerkins 9y ago
I don't smoke pot (I'm middle-aged parent with shit to do), but I do favor marijuana legalization as general policy. However, second-hand smoke is second-hand smoke. I wouldn't favor letting people smoke pot in any locations where they can't smoke tobacco. It's bizarre (and hypocritical) to me that the same demographic most in favor of marijuana also tends to be the most hostile toward public cigarette smoking. Bottom line, you hate second-hand smoke in one context because it mostly comes from rural working-class people... and you're fine with second-hand smoke in the other context because you wanna legally get high (or at least thumb your nose at the rural working-class people who tend to oppose it).

defterGoose 9y ago

"Dude, cuz this stuff is kickin' in bro!"

steventhedev 9y ago

I recall that NIDA had some rather nasty quality control issues (you'd think you'd be able to do better with a budget of 69 million dollars)[0]. To be honest, I could imagine at least some studies being rejected for lack of adequate supplies. Not much point in trying to do science if your samples are heavily contaminated. [0]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governmen...

veli_joza 9y ago
Moldy samples from the only approved source? What a waste of taxpayer money. They should be held accountable.
- true_religion 9y ago
  They who? The farm? The scientists?
  - pboutros 9y ago
    I'm guessing the farm.

bluetwo 9y ago

I would have bet money Obama would have moved it to Schedule III before leaving office.

bluejekyll 9y ago
I suppose he knew it would just be reverted by the next president? It is disappointing. Are any cases on their way to the Supreme Court yet?
- smt88 9y ago
  The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - rhizome 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...

doggydogs94 9y ago

Anybody who believes that inhaling any smoke is harmless is fooling themselves.

wedowhatwedo 9y ago
Anybody who believes that the only way to ingest Marijuana involves smoke is also fooling themselves.
oliv__ 9y ago
Life is harmful
visarga 9y ago
That would be true if marijuana were an issue separate from everything else. But in reality it's a choice between multiple types of harm - the lesser of them is better.
mwfunk 9y ago
When did anyone ever say inhaling smoke is harmless?
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  Read the first paragraph of the article.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

arca_vorago 9y ago

Quick first point, the proper term to be used should be cannabis. Back about 10 years ago I looked into this, the main problem was that the University of Mississippi was using very questionable methods to produce what they call "research-grade" cannabis. They were growing and then doing "thc extracts" (focused on just the thc content, not the other cannabinoids), and then spraying the concentrated THC onto what everyone who interacted with it called questionable "plant-matter", supposedly so they could more carefully control the THC percentages. In essence, for a long time, all the studies that were using UoM cannabis were actually not using natural cannabis, so it's no wonder many of the studies failed in general. Personally, after working in genetics for a while (just as a sysadmin), I came to the conclusion that the big guys like Monsanto just wanted to get all the IP/patents on the genomics so they could then do modified versions it would be illegal to grow on your own, and as soon as they get all that sorted, they will use their corruption of congress to get it legalized under their control. On a more constitutional note, I personally have come to the conclusion that the government primarily has abused the commerce clause (as it has in many other instances) in order to get to this level of control in the "drug war". On top that, as a general principle, under natural rights, I don't think either the federal or state government has any rightful power to restrict what I do or do not do with my body, whether that be drink coke, smoke cannabis, or eat lettuce. Therefore on princple as a constitutionalist, I have to admit the real proper move is to legalize drugs and treat them as medical issue. One of my primary criticisms of the recent recreational/legalization movement is that often in those states it is still illegal to grow your own. I think this is also unconstitutional, because there is no reason to require people to buy from someone else when they can easily grow it on their own. What's next, you may not grow your own tomatoes or jalapeno peppers? A overly dramatic rhetoric for sure, but you get my point. The other problem is that the drug war has essentially enabled pre-crime to become commonplace because that is what it is on it's face. We arrested that drug user because he is doing drugs and therefore will eventually commit a crime... One more thing, I get really tired of people who pop adderall all week, get drunk all weekend, and smoke cigars of acting all high and mighty about people smoking cannabis.

dna_polymerase 9y ago
Reading your conclusions here I come to the conclusion that you should focus on your sysadmin job.

itomato 9y ago

Have we forgotten what the problem of secondhand smoke actually is? Multiple pack a day indoor smokers keeping a space filled with carcinogens. Sitting next to someone with a joint of Certified Organic Top Shelf California cannabis at an outdoor Paul McCartney concert is an absurd comparison.

draw_down 9y ago

Pretty simple: cui bono?