7 ms·

Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe? Breathing is not safe either. Living on earth as well; small rocks from outerspace have crea

• cirgue 8y ago
  > Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe? Yeah, it does. It matters a hell of a lot that alcohol isn't safe, and there are a whole bunch of very well-known problems associated with using it regularly. Same for most medications. Many aren't super safe, and there is a fair bit of research and information dissemination required to make sure doctors and patients know the costs and benefits. When we fail at doing that, it causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. You should be able to make your own call, and that means knowing. The really creepy thing about this conversation is that there is a shitload of money to be made by concealing the hazards of marijuana use, just as there is for alcohol and cigarettes.
  • dvtrn 8y ago
    there are a whole bunch of very well-known problems associated with using it regularly. Are you at all inclined to share sources of this? After reading this long article posted that essentially says "we don't have enough evidence, there's not enough studies being done", someone saying there are well-known problems has me wanting to read more and not just take their word for it.
    • cirgue 8y ago
      I was referring to alcohol, not marijuana.
      • dvtrn 8y ago
        oop. I entirely misread your comment.
    • kolbe 8y ago
      This isn't a long term health effect per se, but it is a health issue. >A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute in June of last year finds that states that legalized marijuana saw insurance claims for auto accidents increase about 3% over the general national trend for the time. An updated study by the same group finds 6% according to insurance claims, and 5.2% according to police reports. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/07/marijuana-an-update/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/07/marijuana-an-update/
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • Alex3917 8y ago
    > Many aren't super safe, and there is a fair bit of research and information dissemination required to make sure doctors and patients know the costs and benefits. Most patients/doctors don't really care if what they're taking is safe or not. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what the active ingredient in Tylenol is.
    • Puer 8y ago
      The vast majority of Americans don't know/care what the active ingredient in Tylenol is because its effects have been extensively studied and tested and there's strong evidence consuming it over long periods of time has minimal to no harmful health effects. The same cannot be said of marijuana.
      • mikestew 8y ago
        Read the sibling comment. Smoke all the cannabis you want, too much THC hasn’t killed anyone yet. The same cannot be said for acetaminophen, and it is in a lot of stuff that might be taken along with Tylenol, so people should care.
      • fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
        As another commentor mentioned, Tylenol isn’t the best example here: acetaminophen is fairly dangerous and it’s not at all clear that it should be as easily available as it is.
    • Zigurd 8y ago
      They should be more careful about Tylenol. Paracetamol, aka acetaminophen is the number 1 cause of liver failure in the US. I was shocked to learn that considering how much damage drinking causes. But you don't see many article pointing out what sure looks like a big public health problem. I have the impression I see a lot more articles about crisis PR based on the Tylenol poisonings.
  • bmj 8y ago
    Also, let's not forget our history: at various points, both cigarettes and alcohol were pitched as being healthy for the users. That is basically where we are now with marijuana. It is entirely possible that marijuana has significant health benefits, but, per the article, we should probably run some serious studies to actually find out.
    • philamonster 8y ago
      "1920s: Cyclists would smoke cigarettes while riding to reportedly ‘open the lungs.’" https://www.bicycling.com/health-nutrition/a20040926/timeline-a-history-of-tour-de-france-nutrition/ https://www.bicycling.com/health-nutrition/a20040926/timelin...
    • lotsofpulp 8y ago
      I haven't heard anyone claim anything about marijuana being healthy, just not harmful enough to cause it to be illegal, and definitely not worthy of prison.
      • DanBC 8y ago
        It's often said in HN threads, particularly about pain relief.
        • lotsofpulp 8y ago
          I wouldn’t equate a statement that something helps with pain relief to be equivalent to that something being healthy. Healthy to me means something that everyone can do to maintain or improve their body’s functionality, such as eating the right foods with the right nutrients in the right amount, or excercise.
          • DanBC 8y ago
            You need to read the threads. People are saying cannabis is risk free, that it's healthy, that there are no possible problems linked to cannabis.
  • josefresco 8y ago
    > shitload of money to be made by concealing the hazards of marijuana us You forget that there's been almost a century of lying about the "hazards" of "marijuana" while simultaneously concealing the hazards of other "legal" substances to protect corporate profits and throw people of color in jail.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • lujer78 8y ago
      You lost me at the racist bs.
      • TheBeardKing 8y ago
        Adam Ruins Everything - The Sinister Reason Weed is Illegal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk
      • throwaway2016a 8y ago
        I hate to jump into this topic and I'll try not to take sides but... There is actually pretty strong evidence that is actually was to put people of color in jail (at least initially). At the very least enough plausible evidence to show that throwing around "bs" like that might be misguided. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ > "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
        • josefresco 8y ago
          You beat me to the quote! Thanks for contributing. Let's also not forget the name itself "marijuana" was chosen to stoke racist fears of Mexicans and African Americans.
  • TheBeardKing 8y ago
    IMO, all that matters is that we can safely put cannabis in the "use in moderation" category along with alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, ibuprofen, and loads of possible carcinogens the jury is still out on. Unless prescribed by a doctor, the only thing you should safely inhale is fresh air, and people generally know that. I hate that the legalization discussion is twisting into "well how safe is it?" If you're really concerned, don't use it unless medically necessary, or take your chances on other drugs which have plenty of known side effects. Just because it can be abused, or may not be safe in heavy dosages, is no reason to jail someone. Pertaining to regulations, I see no reason to extend beyond the current recommendations for alcohol - use in moderation, don't use pregnant, don't drive while impaired, etc.
  • chumali 8y ago
    I'm not convinced that more academic information will benefit anyone other than the most fastidious individuals (a minority unlikely to ever participate in recreational use). The majority of use is recreational and rarely entails the kind of detailed cost benefit analysis you imply. Reading the disclaimers on modern medicines usually leaves me feeling more confused (not helped by the fact they usually list every side-effect under the sun, often mentioning opposite effects such weight gain and weight loss together). For the typical user, the logic is usually that marijuana enhances their mood or creativity or coping ability, and that its adverse effects are relatively benign (based on informal/anecdotal knowledge from its millennia of use as a recreational substance). Decisions are also made at the margin, meaning the user rarely considers the impact beyond the immediate costs and benefits (a strong argument for taxation). What would be useful to the majority of users is research in to how to mitigate the harmful effects to consumption (e.g. through alternatives to smoking) and through clear standards so they know what they are getting, the strength, duration, etc.
• bjt2n3904 8y ago
  > The universe isn't safe and I don't want to be safe; I want to be happy. You know what doesn't make me happy? Substance abuse. Source, Bojack Horseman. I read your entire post in his voice.
  • esahione 8y ago
    Absolutely not. Hence why I rarely if ever drink, and only smoke pot at night before going to sleep. But it should be my choice -- even if I wanted to start IVing heroin :)
• lewisflude 8y ago
  Aren't "hurts nobody" and "unsafe" two mutually exclusive options? I think people should have the right to do what they want, like smoke weed, but I think that researching how it affects health is a positive thing.
• ars 8y ago
  You forgot the "as we think" part of the question. We know how safe and unsafe alcohol and medication are. And when we don't we study them. If the perception of safety for marijuana doesn't match the realty then this article is appropriate.
• platz 8y ago
  Your argument is so general it "proves too much"
• IMTDb 8y ago
  Between prohibition and legalization, there is the middle ground called "deciminalization" : you can't open a brick and mortar store selling grass, create a weed delivery app, or openliy smoke in public. But if you get caught smoking or just having weed on you, you just a small/medium fine and no jail time, and no criminal record. This solves the issue of destroying lives for minor offences while still limiting consumption of a notoriously nefarious product.
  • castis 8y ago
    Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?
    • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others? The article points out that we don’t know marijuana “doesn’t negatively affect others.”
    • Jhndb 8y ago
      So that others don't negatively affect themselves (devils advocate)
    • michjedi 8y ago
      How does it not affect others? 1. Vapours/Smoke affects those around you 2. Your behaviour change due to the drug affects those around you 3. Your behaviour change due to the need for the drug affects those around you
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • castis 8y ago
        All of those straw men are negated by the fact that you don't know me.
    • 8y ago
• assblaster 8y ago
  Alcohol is not safe. Too much can impair judgement resulting in increased agreeableness to sexual advances. Too much can result in impaired driving, and the decreased judgement can allow someone to decide to drive despite impairment. Too frequent use increases risk of GI cancer. Too much can result in physical dependence, with concomitant socioeconomic consequences. Too little can result in withdrawal symptoms, from mild to life threatening. On a silly side note, alcohol causes researchers to waste time trying to justify regular alcohol consumption, such as supposed cancer benefit or increased cardiovascular health (what studies have consistently shown a benefit?). Marijuana likely has no obvious benefit besides as an aid for increasing appetite or as an aid for terminal cancer pain treatment, but likely obvious negatives such as behavioral problems, carcinogen inhalation, waste of economic resources.
• basic1 8y ago
  can't even talk about marijuana without constant deflection to alcohol and the war on drugs
• Puer 8y ago
  This is the Nirvana fallacy. You aren't addressing the main point of the article, which is even if marijuana is legalized its use perhaps shouldn't be widely promoted because its health effects--both positive and negative--aren't fully understood yet.
• i_am_nomad 8y ago
  Your point seems to be that there’s risk in everything. But there’s a big difference between calculated and uncalculated risks, and the article’s central thesis is that cannabis is the latter.
  • esahione 8y ago
    My point is that it is up to the individual to take that risk, not up to society to regulate what risks an individual can take or not, especially when it comes to their own bodies.
    • lotusss 8y ago
      But you're deflecting from a conversation that's just about enumerating the risks. We don't know the risks from consuming marijuana (aside from anecdotes, but I've got a good sense of the risk from personal consumption and the effects on people close to me). The marijuana-legalization discussion is advocating that it doesn't have risks, and it's leading to people making uninformed choices. That's the discussion here. What are the downsides?
      • esahione 8y ago
        But the conversation we should be having is legalization. Right now it is still illegal in most states, and people are going to jail on a daily basis because of it. Tell me, how does an article like this improve the actual problem at hand at all? It doesn't, and by doing so, it shifts the conversation from what should be illegal to a conversation that is totally irrelevant. I'm bringing it back to the core of the issue. Prohibition is bad. It doesn't work. We fund drug cartels because of it. We fund drug dealers. And ultimately, it is up to the individual to make his own choices over what he should or should not do with his body.
        • lotusss 8y ago
          > Tell me, how does an article like this improve the actual problem at hand at all? Arguably very few articles improve problems at hand, but for over a quarter of the US population, marijuana is legal recreationally. In Canada, marijuana is legal recreationally. And even where marijuana is illegal, it's often not terribly-well-enforced anymore. New York City, the city this publication is based around, has decriminalized the substance and is no longer arresting people for marijuana possession. The question for this audience is "should I consume it?" and "should we societally start investing in understanding the downsides of consuming large quantities of THC?" Those are the important questions for these people, who live in the post legalization (or heavily decriminalized) world. And we don't have good answers for those people. > it shifts the conversation from what should be illegal to a conversation that is totally irrelevant. The readership of the New Yorker, I would hazard, has already come down strongly on the side of "should not be illegal". It's a liberal publication in a liberal city that has decriminalized marijuana usage, and its readership, I'm almost certain, overlaps strongly with people who are in favor of legalization. Why is the conversation of "is this healthy" not relevant?
• sh4rk 8y ago
  Also it's safer than war (on drugs).
• macleodnine 8y ago
  This is "WhatAboutism". Not all dangers are equal and therefore should be treated differently. In society we try to limit danger to whatever we think is an acceptable level (which is totally made constantly up for debate). Saying that the universe is dangerous and so any other danger is irrelevant doesn't hold. I'm not really expressing an opinion on weed or anything, just the flawed logic.
  • esahione 8y ago
    No -- the nanny state is what I'm not for, so my argument has nothing to do with pot but more with the perception that safety is a requirement for something to be legal/accepted by society.
    • lotusss 8y ago
      Your logic is forcing me to draw parallels with marijuana that I don't want to, but this reasoning is not very persuasive. Why shouldn't safety be a requirement for something to be legal? Should drunk driving be legal? Should firing a gun in a crowded place be legal? Should serving food that's contaminated with a poisonous substance be legal? I know that marijuana isn't harmful in the way shooting a firearm or poisoning someone's food is. But this line of reasoning--"never consider safety when determining what's acceptable"--is ludicrous.
      • esahione 8y ago
        You're comparing safety of others with safety of one's self. Of course drunk driving should be illegal, you're putting others at risk. Think of Kantian logic applied to the body. As long as I am only affecting my body when doing something, it is irrelevant whether it is safe or not.
• eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Exactly. I used to be a heavy marijuana user and it’s definitely not innocuous. But I still think the evidence is clear that the societal effects of prohibition are worse than the drug itself. Also, there are clearly medical benefits to the drug for some people, although I do resent how the industry as a whole is trying to act like it’s medicine for all people. These kind of articles make no sense when we see how much damage alcohol does each year. And no sane person would propose alcohol prohibition again.
• lotusss 8y ago
  I don't think this article has advocated in any way that you should lose your choice to consume marijuana. Rather, they are advocating that the fundamental conversation around marijuana legalisation--something roughly resembling "it's got no harmful effects and is a magic medical cure-all" deserve re-examining. Marijuana has been illegal for so long, and the penalties so draconian for the substance, that society has naturally pushed back on that. But it could be pushing back too far--there's all sorts of marijuana discussion that is unwilling to consider whether it has harmful effects. Alcohol is unsafe, I agree. And that matters. It matters for the car accidents, domestic abuse, and lives that alcoholism destroys. And if the conversation around alcohol involved plugging our ears and pretending it wasn't harmful, then people would routinely engage in unsafe behavior to the detriment of themselves and society.
  • esahione 8y ago
    I think you're reading into my argument a tad too much -- my rights end where yours begin. If I am doing any harm to anyone else, that should be illegal. Hence why domestic abuse and drunk driving are illegal and should be.
    • lotusss 8y ago
      I think it's the opposite. You're reading too much into the article. Marijuana has a reputation amongst advocates of being a miracle cure-all for all the world's ailments and no downsides. This article is asking the question--what are the downsides? You're instead defending against the notion of criminality.
      • esahione 8y ago
        I am, because that's the main issue right now. While you may live in CA, I currently live in TX and can go to jail for years for smoking a plant. Tell me, how should I react to an article that could be used as an argument against my rights being the same as yours?
• cyberpip 8y ago
  “We can begin the restructuring of thought by declaring legitimate what we have denied for so long. Lets us declare Nature to be legitimate. The notion of illegal plants is obnoxious and ridiculous in the first place.” ― Terence McKenna, Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge
• taobility 8y ago
  I agree with you only if when you homeless, don't ask me to increase my tax rate to provide you free food and shelter. And please persuade Seattle government, those homeless are their own choice, and they deserve it.