7 ms·

GP is not implying anything, they're saying there is a safe level of consumption.

by vhcr 3y ago

bumby 3y ago
I’m asking if their definition of safe means zero risk. Because that’s the same rationale that the WHO uses to claim alcohol has no safe level of consumption (I.e., there is no level of alcohol consumption that is zero risk). So either they think there is a level of cannabis use that is zero risk, or they have a different definition of safe consumption that they could elaborate on.
- batch12 3y ago
  Yes, if we're dealing in absolutes, I'm sure there is a level of cannabis consumption that is zero risk for some people. Check out CBD.
  - bumby 3y ago
    My first Google search on CBD risks refer to liver toxicity, both by itself and with interactions with other substances.
    - batch12 3y ago
      My first google search shows articles that discuss zero risk.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Mine are from sources like the FDA, WHO, and CDC.
        batch12 3y ago
        Congratulations!
        bumby 3y ago
        You may want to take some time to review the HN Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        batch12 3y ago
        Thanks!
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    Just as there is a level of alcohol use that is "zero risk". But that level might be one drop in a glass of water at meals, and a level which has zero pleasurable effects.
    - bumby 3y ago
      That's just it, though. The WHO says there is no level of alcohol use that is "zero risk." The difference between toxicity and therapeutic use is what helps define the safety of the substance. There are some, like psilocybin mushrooms, that have a relatively monstrous gulf between therapeutic doses (in the mcg) and toxic doses (presumably in the kg). They are quite safe, though not zero risk. I believe alcohol is relatively unsafe by that measure, while cannabis is pretty darn safe. But that's not the same thing as saying "zero risk". I think the poster is just imprecise with their language when they mean to say "safe" and not "zero risk".
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        They drink wine on a daily basis in at least some of the blue zones where people regularly live to a hundred years old or longer. So it's not reasonable to say alcohol is relatively unsafe. Relative to what and in which circumstances? As far as cannabis being "pretty darn safe", a recent study shows it causes heart disease. And more than one study shows it increases the risk of heart attack for up to an hour. What we really need is an end to prohibition, and continued funding for studies on the substances that are the most popular so folks can make the most informed choices.
        bumby 3y ago
        >Relative to what and in which circumstances? To apply this to your example, cannabis was linked to heart disease in daily smokers. As one would expect, the study showed a dose dependent relationship with cannabis and risk. Just like you can find “some” people who drink daily and become centenarians, you have to be careful about the way you characterize the risk. I believe the better data show more than 4 drinks a week does increase your health risk substantially. In both cases, it seems like moderation is key, although I maintain cannabis is far safer when you compare the ratio of therapeutic to toxic dosage. But that’s acute risk, where the study you’re talking about is chronic risk.
- slenk 3y ago
  Any amount of alcohol increases your risk of cancer: https://www.cancervic.org.au/cancer-information/preventing-cancer/limit-alcohol/how-alcohol-causes-cancer https://www.cancervic.org.au/cancer-information/preventing-c... I don't think the same can be said for cannabis use
  - bumby 3y ago
    “Strong evidence” (wording used in your link) is not the same as “incontrovertible evidence.” Even if we concede the cancer risk, there are other risks that may be unarticulated. (That said as someone who abstains from both alcohol and cannabis)
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    It's not accurate to say any amount of alcohol increases your risk of cancer. There is clearly a threshold amount and one droplet of red wine in a glass of water one time in your life is not going to increase cancer risk in any measurable way. The threshold amount does matter if people want to make the smartest choices and still enjoy life. The same can already be said of cannabis. "People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine. The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice." [1] Other studies have shown the risk of heart attack goes up in the first hour after smoking cannabis. Prohibition doesn't work. And we need loads of more studies like this so folks can be well informed in their choices. However regulations and taxes do work. Smoking cigarettes continues to become less and less popular thanks to information, higher taxes, and other regulations. Considering how popular cannabis is, we should be funding more research so we can make informed choices, and at tax it at a level that recovers the actual cost to society. [1] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-heart-disease.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-hea...

GP is not implying anything, they're saying there is a safe level of consumption.

by vhcr 3y ago

GP is not implying anything, they're saying there is a safe level of consumption.

I’m asking if their definition of safe means zero risk. Because that’s the same rationale that the WHO uses to claim alcohol has no safe level of consumption (I.e., there is no level of alcohol consumption that is zero risk). So either they think there is a level of cannabis use that is zero risk, or they have a different definition of safe consumption that they could elaborate on.

batch12 3y ago
Yes, if we're dealing in absolutes, I'm sure there is a level of cannabis consumption that is zero risk for some people. Check out CBD.
- bumby 3y ago
  My first Google search on CBD risks refer to liver toxicity, both by itself and with interactions with other substances.
  - batch12 3y ago
    My first google search shows articles that discuss zero risk.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Mine are from sources like the FDA, WHO, and CDC.
      - batch12 3y ago
        Congratulations!
        bumby 3y ago
        You may want to take some time to review the HN Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        batch12 3y ago
        Thanks!
- tchaffee 3y ago
  Just as there is a level of alcohol use that is "zero risk". But that level might be one drop in a glass of water at meals, and a level which has zero pleasurable effects.
  - bumby 3y ago
    That's just it, though. The WHO says there is no level of alcohol use that is "zero risk." The difference between toxicity and therapeutic use is what helps define the safety of the substance. There are some, like psilocybin mushrooms, that have a relatively monstrous gulf between therapeutic doses (in the mcg) and toxic doses (presumably in the kg). They are quite safe, though not zero risk. I believe alcohol is relatively unsafe by that measure, while cannabis is pretty darn safe. But that's not the same thing as saying "zero risk". I think the poster is just imprecise with their language when they mean to say "safe" and not "zero risk".
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      They drink wine on a daily basis in at least some of the blue zones where people regularly live to a hundred years old or longer. So it's not reasonable to say alcohol is relatively unsafe. Relative to what and in which circumstances? As far as cannabis being "pretty darn safe", a recent study shows it causes heart disease. And more than one study shows it increases the risk of heart attack for up to an hour. What we really need is an end to prohibition, and continued funding for studies on the substances that are the most popular so folks can make the most informed choices.
      - bumby 3y ago
        >Relative to what and in which circumstances? To apply this to your example, cannabis was linked to heart disease in daily smokers. As one would expect, the study showed a dose dependent relationship with cannabis and risk. Just like you can find “some” people who drink daily and become centenarians, you have to be careful about the way you characterize the risk. I believe the better data show more than 4 drinks a week does increase your health risk substantially. In both cases, it seems like moderation is key, although I maintain cannabis is far safer when you compare the ratio of therapeutic to toxic dosage. But that’s acute risk, where the study you’re talking about is chronic risk.
slenk 3y ago
Any amount of alcohol increases your risk of cancer: https://www.cancervic.org.au/cancer-information/preventing-cancer/limit-alcohol/how-alcohol-causes-cancer https://www.cancervic.org.au/cancer-information/preventing-c... I don't think the same can be said for cannabis use
- bumby 3y ago
  “Strong evidence” (wording used in your link) is not the same as “incontrovertible evidence.” Even if we concede the cancer risk, there are other risks that may be unarticulated. (That said as someone who abstains from both alcohol and cannabis)
- tchaffee 3y ago
  It's not accurate to say any amount of alcohol increases your risk of cancer. There is clearly a threshold amount and one droplet of red wine in a glass of water one time in your life is not going to increase cancer risk in any measurable way. The threshold amount does matter if people want to make the smartest choices and still enjoy life. The same can already be said of cannabis. "People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine. The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice." [1] Other studies have shown the risk of heart attack goes up in the first hour after smoking cannabis. Prohibition doesn't work. And we need loads of more studies like this so folks can be well informed in their choices. However regulations and taxes do work. Smoking cigarettes continues to become less and less popular thanks to information, higher taxes, and other regulations. Considering how popular cannabis is, we should be funding more research so we can make informed choices, and at tax it at a level that recovers the actual cost to society. [1] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-heart-disease.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-hea...