6 ms·

It’s Time for a New Discussion of Marijuana’s Risks

36 points by haZard_OS 8y ago

mc32 8y ago
It’s fair to say that if we think smoke in general is deleterious to respiratory health and many chemical compounds found in different kinds of smoke are known carcinogens that marijuana is not exempt from those troublesome characteristics. Given its potential harm as well as benefits in health, it’s worthwhile that people in general as well as proponents for liberalization, myself included, know more about all its effects. We as a population would be better served if there were a middle ground between it’s and evil gateway drug and it’s a cure to many ailments and should not be regulated.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  I disagree. If you read the literature you will find cannabis smoke, physically, is stunningly non-harmful and not associated with much more than perhaps a slightly higher chance of respiratory infection. Whereas tobacco is ridiculously deleterious and causes oxidative damage directly iirc. I used to think it was all about smoke inhalation but it’s not that simple. That being said, obviously I agree that we need to study the effects of cannabis as much as possible.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Ok ... and what about the actual burning leaves that you inhale and get stuck in your lungs ? Are you seriously willing to make the argument that that (which is the common way to smoke it) is not harmful ? I mean, shred a paper, burn it, watch the burning threads rise. Now imagine these things on top of alveoli in the lungs. Despite their tiny size those threads are hundreds to thousands of times bigger than those alveoli. Now think of what happens to these things, when held against ~215 degrees celcius threads. Harmless. Clearly.
    - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
      Sorry, your argument intuitively sounds valid but it isn't. I know because I made the same assumptions but my reading of the scientific literature has convinced me otherwise. As one example, "tar" inhaled from cannabis is not correlated with long-term diseases like lung cancer, throat cancer, etc. However, the "tar" (a very vague term) from tobacco, wood smoke, etc is horrifically damaging to your body.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Lighting shit on fire produces carcinogenic material. That's about all the science on MJ smoke (vs vapor etc) that I really need to know.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - thatcat 8y ago
      Heat is well known to cause cancer, including in the form of hot beverages; but the contents of smoke aside from CO2 and H2O depends entirely on the source of combustion.
      - dTal 8y ago
        I'd not heard this about heat. It doesn't seem like an entirely straightforward link to me - aren't saunas supposed to fight cancer?
        thatcat 8y ago
        Since cancer is caused by certain mutations and heat can induce mutation, ingesting hot things can be mutagenic and thus carcinogenic.[0] Saunas at the right temp for the right time can induce the expression of protective heat shock protiens.[1] [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/ [1]https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/reasons-sweating-far-often/ https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/reasons-sweating-far-often/
  - anothergoogler 8y ago
    When I smoked weed heavily, I had persistent sinus inflammation/infection and coughed up black and grey mucus every day. Open wounds took forever to properly heal. Switching to vaporizing cleared those symptoms up pretty much immediately. Smoke is just plain bad for you, even smoked meat (BBQ) is linked to cancer!
    - gremlinsinc 8y ago
      Damn...I don't smoke pot, but I love smoked brisket lol. If smoking is a concern though couldn't people just bake more cookies? Doesn't that have the same effect (again - I've never used...but am supportive of legalization for the sake of ending the drug war and attacks on minorities and poor people).
      - dekhn 8y ago
        Baked goods also contain acrylamide and probably cause very small increase in rates of cancer. Not worth it from a health perspective.
        acct1771 8y ago
        What is that, and how?
- dekhn 8y ago
  Your presumption is wrong. Science has shown repeatedly now that your assumption about carcinogens in marijuana is incorrect (I'd describe it as a "zeroth-order hypothesis", simply imputing properties by superficial similarity but no other evidence). In fact, with the except of one non-invasive prostate cancer, marijuana seems to have a protective effect against lung cancer. It still does cause respiratory health problems in heavy smokers, but not nearly as significant as tobacco smoking.
scarface74 8y ago
Whatever the risks of marijuana are, they pale in comparison of the harm done by the "War on Drugs" aka the "War on Poor People and Minorities". Anything that takes power away from the criminal "justice" system to lock up people for non violent offenses, I'm all for it.
- freedomben 8y ago
  The war on drugs has destroyed many lives of people in majorities as well, from poor all the way up to wealthy. This doesn't have to be a divisive issue. It's a human issue.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Statistically the poor and minorities get treated worse with harsher sentences for the same offense. Don't you think it's strange that it was all about being "tough on crime" when drugs were happening in the inner city but it's all about "treating drug abuse as a disease" when it's illegal use of prescription drugs in the burbs? Drug dealers in the inner city get locked up. Doctors who over prescribe because they get "marketing assistance" may get a slap on the wrist if that.
    - gremlinsinc 8y ago
      The war on pot/crack was Nixon's way of attacking democrats since people in prison can't vote, that's less votes for democrats in elections. He targeted specifically drugs used by those demographics, I believe that's why people were more likely to get off using white-collar drugs than crack or pot. Correction: It was also to attack the anti-war(hippie)-left -- comes directly from a Nixon Aid: https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr... It's so sad that this was all created for political gain, and not because it actually would 'help' society.
    - burfog 8y ago
      No, I don't think it is strange. It has little if anything to do with "poor and minorities" or "inner city". It is about purpose for use and the credentials of the supplier. People trust doctors. People expect that this will not be a problem. People have sympathy for those who are addicted due to having, perhaps wrongly, trusted a doctor. That doctor is a paid professional, highly trained, and expected to provide for your health. Consider a similar situation. A person gets a house built, moves into it, and it collapses. They might have hired a licensed general contractor, or they might have paid a random person they found sitting outside the hardware store. The difference matters. Similarly, one could hire a licensed pilot or somebody who took just a couple lessons. You may die either way, but one way gets much more sympathy. There is also the matter of need. The doctor is supposedly supplying drugs for a purpose beyond "it would be fun". There is no respect for people who gamble with their health just to have fun. Somebody who just got a hip replacement is understood to need painkillers. Visible needs are obviously legitimate. If there is no visible problem, the assumption is that the usage is just for fun. BTW, for these purposes, the start of the addiction is what counts. The current drug supplier matters much less than the initial drug supplier.
grawprog 8y ago
Lol fuck off. Same old shit...living in a city exposes you to probably more carcinogens then you get from smoking pot.
maxander 8y ago
HNers interested in this topic are liable to be interested in SlateStarCodex's treatment of it: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha... . tl;dr; according to the author's "Irresponsible Utilitarian Analysis," the statistically dominant factor in whether widely-legalized marijuana would be a net benefit or harm to society is its impact on driving. Since cars are, for most of us, the most dangerous thing in our lives, this probably makes a decent amount of sense.
- OscarCunningham 8y ago
  I find it funny that he doesn't consider the benefit of people who want to use cannabis being able to use cannabis. That seems like it should be the main advantage!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

36 points by haZard_OS 8y ago

mc32 8y ago

It’s fair to say that if we think smoke in general is deleterious to respiratory health and many chemical compounds found in different kinds of smoke are known carcinogens that marijuana is not exempt from those troublesome characteristics. Given its potential harm as well as benefits in health, it’s worthwhile that people in general as well as proponents for liberalization, myself included, know more about all its effects. We as a population would be better served if there were a middle ground between it’s and evil gateway drug and it’s a cure to many ailments and should not be regulated.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
I disagree. If you read the literature you will find cannabis smoke, physically, is stunningly non-harmful and not associated with much more than perhaps a slightly higher chance of respiratory infection. Whereas tobacco is ridiculously deleterious and causes oxidative damage directly iirc. I used to think it was all about smoke inhalation but it’s not that simple. That being said, obviously I agree that we need to study the effects of cannabis as much as possible.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Ok ... and what about the actual burning leaves that you inhale and get stuck in your lungs ? Are you seriously willing to make the argument that that (which is the common way to smoke it) is not harmful ? I mean, shred a paper, burn it, watch the burning threads rise. Now imagine these things on top of alveoli in the lungs. Despite their tiny size those threads are hundreds to thousands of times bigger than those alveoli. Now think of what happens to these things, when held against ~215 degrees celcius threads. Harmless. Clearly.
  - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
    Sorry, your argument intuitively sounds valid but it isn't. I know because I made the same assumptions but my reading of the scientific literature has convinced me otherwise. As one example, "tar" inhaled from cannabis is not correlated with long-term diseases like lung cancer, throat cancer, etc. However, the "tar" (a very vague term) from tobacco, wood smoke, etc is horrifically damaging to your body.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Lighting shit on fire produces carcinogenic material. That's about all the science on MJ smoke (vs vapor etc) that I really need to know.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatcat 8y ago
    Heat is well known to cause cancer, including in the form of hot beverages; but the contents of smoke aside from CO2 and H2O depends entirely on the source of combustion.
    - dTal 8y ago
      I'd not heard this about heat. It doesn't seem like an entirely straightforward link to me - aren't saunas supposed to fight cancer?
      - thatcat 8y ago
        Since cancer is caused by certain mutations and heat can induce mutation, ingesting hot things can be mutagenic and thus carcinogenic.[0] Saunas at the right temp for the right time can induce the expression of protective heat shock protiens.[1] [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/ [1]https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/reasons-sweating-far-often/ https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/reasons-sweating-far-often/
- anothergoogler 8y ago
  When I smoked weed heavily, I had persistent sinus inflammation/infection and coughed up black and grey mucus every day. Open wounds took forever to properly heal. Switching to vaporizing cleared those symptoms up pretty much immediately. Smoke is just plain bad for you, even smoked meat (BBQ) is linked to cancer!
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Damn...I don't smoke pot, but I love smoked brisket lol. If smoking is a concern though couldn't people just bake more cookies? Doesn't that have the same effect (again - I've never used...but am supportive of legalization for the sake of ending the drug war and attacks on minorities and poor people).
    - dekhn 8y ago
      Baked goods also contain acrylamide and probably cause very small increase in rates of cancer. Not worth it from a health perspective.
      - acct1771 8y ago
        What is that, and how?
dekhn 8y ago
Your presumption is wrong. Science has shown repeatedly now that your assumption about carcinogens in marijuana is incorrect (I'd describe it as a "zeroth-order hypothesis", simply imputing properties by superficial similarity but no other evidence). In fact, with the except of one non-invasive prostate cancer, marijuana seems to have a protective effect against lung cancer. It still does cause respiratory health problems in heavy smokers, but not nearly as significant as tobacco smoking.

scarface74 8y ago

Whatever the risks of marijuana are, they pale in comparison of the harm done by the "War on Drugs" aka the "War on Poor People and Minorities". Anything that takes power away from the criminal "justice" system to lock up people for non violent offenses, I'm all for it.

freedomben 8y ago
The war on drugs has destroyed many lives of people in majorities as well, from poor all the way up to wealthy. This doesn't have to be a divisive issue. It's a human issue.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Statistically the poor and minorities get treated worse with harsher sentences for the same offense. Don't you think it's strange that it was all about being "tough on crime" when drugs were happening in the inner city but it's all about "treating drug abuse as a disease" when it's illegal use of prescription drugs in the burbs? Drug dealers in the inner city get locked up. Doctors who over prescribe because they get "marketing assistance" may get a slap on the wrist if that.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    The war on pot/crack was Nixon's way of attacking democrats since people in prison can't vote, that's less votes for democrats in elections. He targeted specifically drugs used by those demographics, I believe that's why people were more likely to get off using white-collar drugs than crack or pot. Correction: It was also to attack the anti-war(hippie)-left -- comes directly from a Nixon Aid: https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr... It's so sad that this was all created for political gain, and not because it actually would 'help' society.
  - burfog 8y ago
    No, I don't think it is strange. It has little if anything to do with "poor and minorities" or "inner city". It is about purpose for use and the credentials of the supplier. People trust doctors. People expect that this will not be a problem. People have sympathy for those who are addicted due to having, perhaps wrongly, trusted a doctor. That doctor is a paid professional, highly trained, and expected to provide for your health. Consider a similar situation. A person gets a house built, moves into it, and it collapses. They might have hired a licensed general contractor, or they might have paid a random person they found sitting outside the hardware store. The difference matters. Similarly, one could hire a licensed pilot or somebody who took just a couple lessons. You may die either way, but one way gets much more sympathy. There is also the matter of need. The doctor is supposedly supplying drugs for a purpose beyond "it would be fun". There is no respect for people who gamble with their health just to have fun. Somebody who just got a hip replacement is understood to need painkillers. Visible needs are obviously legitimate. If there is no visible problem, the assumption is that the usage is just for fun. BTW, for these purposes, the start of the addiction is what counts. The current drug supplier matters much less than the initial drug supplier.

grawprog 8y ago

Lol fuck off. Same old shit...living in a city exposes you to probably more carcinogens then you get from smoking pot.

maxander 8y ago

HNers interested in this topic are liable to be interested in SlateStarCodex's treatment of it: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha... . tl;dr; according to the author's "Irresponsible Utilitarian Analysis," the statistically dominant factor in whether widely-legalized marijuana would be a net benefit or harm to society is its impact on driving. Since cars are, for most of us, the most dangerous thing in our lives, this probably makes a decent amount of sense.

OscarCunningham 8y ago
I find it funny that he doesn't consider the benefit of people who want to use cannabis being able to use cannabis. That seems like it should be the main advantage!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]