4 ms·

I find it amusing to see that it's so common to find contrarian research papers around marijuana / cannabis (usually because of apparently contrarian effects on

I find it amusing to see that it's so common to find contrarian research papers around marijuana / cannabis (usually because of apparently contrarian effects on different parts of the body / brain, depending on usage), despite there being so much curiosity around it. When will this confusion end and when will we get definitive answers regarding long term / short term / frequent / seldom use? So that we can get cases on who is prone to abuse, what are the signs, etc? What frequency / reason to use is okay? It seems due already, considering the popularity of the substance among populations world-wide despite the legality status.

tachyonbeam 8y ago
I used to be very into supplements. I've looked at many published papers, and my conclusion is that there is a huge issue with the quality of publications in the health/medical field. Many of the studies around supplements are funded by people selling the supplement, and, big surprise, they go the way the people funding it wanted them to go. You will also find many independent studies contradicting these findings. You're left wondering who's right, who funded those studies, whether you can actually trust their methods. What's worse with Cannabis is that there is a big ideological battle going on. It's gotten political. There are people who seem to believe that Cannabis is some wonder plant that cures cancer (I'm serious). There are lots of people claiming it helps with anxiety. Me, I'm 100% pro-legalization, but whenever I've tried smoking weed (of any strain), it's made me extremely anxious and paranoid. I've even had a panic attack after smoking a joint (and I never get panic attacks!). It seems obvious to me that Cannabis doesn't have the same effect on everybody, and that it's not universally good. Just like everything else in this world, things are more nuanced. I just wish people could see past their own ideology and stop trying to push the idea that this drug is either universally good or universally bad. TL;DR: scientists aren't always impartial. They can be bought, or motivated by political ideology. Both of these things get in the way of real science.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  I have panic disorder and Cannabis got me entirely off of Benzodiazepines. It may not be for everyone and certainly doesn't cure cancer, but it certainly helps a lot of people in beneficial ways. People usually getting panic/anxiety attacks are taking far too much and I never recommend actually smoking it for beginners, instead vaporizing it at a lower temperature.
  - andai 8y ago
    Why do you recommend vaporizing specifically for beginners?
    - danharaj 8y ago
      Vaporizing is much easier on the lungs and the dosage per hit is smaller and more easily controlled (by adjusting the temperature) than smoking.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      It's much less harsh & will prevent you from possibly coughing at all. It usually smells like burnt popcorn instead of Cannabis, so you can relax on that aspect as well (illegal states, smell may trigger paranoia). You can control the certain chemicals you're getting, control the amounts more accurately, and it just feels much more clean and relaxing all around. A lot of being able to handle Cannabis is setting & mental state. I had the same problem being paranoid and getting panic attacks, but that was relieved by vaporizing. It's a more calm and chill high in my opinion.
- onemoresoop 8y ago
  As with everything, the quantity matters. It seems to me that you smoked too much. If you ever want to try again try the least amount possible. Don't abuse, use it like medicine. I'm against recreational smoking when it's a huge quantity like a whole joint with potent marijuana. It renders one into a vegetable. Whats the point of that?? Same as drinking yourself up until intoxication stops you.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  I agree with the gist of what you're saying--we need more higher quality studies to evaluate the effects of marijuana/cannabinoids. However, a drug that causes anxiety in some people and relieves it in others is one that might well be used by doctors (with an appropriate level of care). Most psychoactive medicines have varying effects.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Yeah. Another example: wow, is the leading Pramiracetam research misleading. Probably to justify its cost.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dfxm12 8y ago
When will this confusion end and when will we get definitive answers The first step is legalization so governments don't get in the way of research, ala https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17959251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17959251
jcranmer 8y ago
It is very easy to get bad results in medical studies. Placebo effects are surprisingly powerful, and you need double-blinding to get rid of them. Beyond that, you have the typical slew of statistical fraud that can be committed: ignoring bad results (meaning that published results are more likely to be statistically flukes themselves), p-hacking, insufficient sample size, etc. A proper drug approval trial process is one of the best ways to get statistically valid results. It is also horrifically expensive--you're looking at >$100 million for a phase III trial, whether or not you succeed (this is the main reason drugs are so expensive: you're paying for phase III failures). The studies you see are generally of much poorer quality, and most people who are interested in the subject tend to have a result they are aiming for, which increases the risks of statistical fraud greatly.
natalyarostova 8y ago
The confusion ends when randomized studies are done. If the effects are hard to measure, very small, or present over decades, the confusion will then end when a randomized study with a sufficiently large sample is done over decades. Until then, it's just trying to approximate that using techniques highly sensitive to noise.
agumonkey 8y ago
Not long ago i ran into conferences about thc and schizophrenia. Then someone said that if it was really a trigger, we'd see an epidemic. I'm not pro~ cannabis, but it seems some researchers have an agenda. Médical research is weird.

tachyonbeam 8y ago

I used to be very into supplements. I've looked at many published papers, and my conclusion is that there is a huge issue with the quality of publications in the health/medical field. Many of the studies around supplements are funded by people selling the supplement, and, big surprise, they go the way the people funding it wanted them to go. You will also find many independent studies contradicting these findings. You're left wondering who's right, who funded those studies, whether you can actually trust their methods. What's worse with Cannabis is that there is a big ideological battle going on. It's gotten political. There are people who seem to believe that Cannabis is some wonder plant that cures cancer (I'm serious). There are lots of people claiming it helps with anxiety. Me, I'm 100% pro-legalization, but whenever I've tried smoking weed (of any strain), it's made me extremely anxious and paranoid. I've even had a panic attack after smoking a joint (and I never get panic attacks!). It seems obvious to me that Cannabis doesn't have the same effect on everybody, and that it's not universally good. Just like everything else in this world, things are more nuanced. I just wish people could see past their own ideology and stop trying to push the idea that this drug is either universally good or universally bad. TL;DR: scientists aren't always impartial. They can be bought, or motivated by political ideology. Both of these things get in the way of real science.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
I have panic disorder and Cannabis got me entirely off of Benzodiazepines. It may not be for everyone and certainly doesn't cure cancer, but it certainly helps a lot of people in beneficial ways. People usually getting panic/anxiety attacks are taking far too much and I never recommend actually smoking it for beginners, instead vaporizing it at a lower temperature.
- andai 8y ago
  Why do you recommend vaporizing specifically for beginners?
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Vaporizing is much easier on the lungs and the dosage per hit is smaller and more easily controlled (by adjusting the temperature) than smoking.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    It's much less harsh & will prevent you from possibly coughing at all. It usually smells like burnt popcorn instead of Cannabis, so you can relax on that aspect as well (illegal states, smell may trigger paranoia). You can control the certain chemicals you're getting, control the amounts more accurately, and it just feels much more clean and relaxing all around. A lot of being able to handle Cannabis is setting & mental state. I had the same problem being paranoid and getting panic attacks, but that was relieved by vaporizing. It's a more calm and chill high in my opinion.
onemoresoop 8y ago
As with everything, the quantity matters. It seems to me that you smoked too much. If you ever want to try again try the least amount possible. Don't abuse, use it like medicine. I'm against recreational smoking when it's a huge quantity like a whole joint with potent marijuana. It renders one into a vegetable. Whats the point of that?? Same as drinking yourself up until intoxication stops you.
hyperpape 8y ago
I agree with the gist of what you're saying--we need more higher quality studies to evaluate the effects of marijuana/cannabinoids. However, a drug that causes anxiety in some people and relieves it in others is one that might well be used by doctors (with an appropriate level of care). Most psychoactive medicines have varying effects.
KirinDave 8y ago
Yeah. Another example: wow, is the leading Pramiracetam research misleading. Probably to justify its cost.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dfxm12 8y ago

When will this confusion end and when will we get definitive answers The first step is legalization so governments don't get in the way of research, ala https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17959251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17959251

jcranmer 8y ago

It is very easy to get bad results in medical studies. Placebo effects are surprisingly powerful, and you need double-blinding to get rid of them. Beyond that, you have the typical slew of statistical fraud that can be committed: ignoring bad results (meaning that published results are more likely to be statistically flukes themselves), p-hacking, insufficient sample size, etc. A proper drug approval trial process is one of the best ways to get statistically valid results. It is also horrifically expensive--you're looking at >$100 million for a phase III trial, whether or not you succeed (this is the main reason drugs are so expensive: you're paying for phase III failures). The studies you see are generally of much poorer quality, and most people who are interested in the subject tend to have a result they are aiming for, which increases the risks of statistical fraud greatly.

natalyarostova 8y ago

The confusion ends when randomized studies are done. If the effects are hard to measure, very small, or present over decades, the confusion will then end when a randomized study with a sufficiently large sample is done over decades. Until then, it's just trying to approximate that using techniques highly sensitive to noise.

agumonkey 8y ago

Not long ago i ran into conferences about thc and schizophrenia. Then someone said that if it was really a trigger, we'd see an epidemic. I'm not pro~ cannabis, but it seems some researchers have an agenda. Médical research is weird.