6 ms·

Wikipedia is not the original source of the information, just the most convenient link. Is that all ya got?

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Wait, so the chart and study that are cited there indicate that cannabis is a lot more harmful than ketamine, but somehow that makes it free and clear in your book because it's half as bad as alcohol? Or is your explanation that smoked cannabis is somehow where all the harm comes from (even the social harm which has nothing to do with ingestion method)? I don't see chocolate or sugar on that chart at all, so they must not be "drugs" or they must not be harmful anywhere near the scale of cannabis. The source you are citing actually makes my point for me. This is a drug that has negative effects on the user and on others around the user, and no, those effects are not just about smoking of the drug - taking a mind-altering substance in edible form still alters your mind. In terms of "harm to others" on that chart, your drug of choice rates worse than cocaine! That harm, by the way, is not about secondary smoke and does not magically go away when you eat the substance instead of inhaling it. I'm honestly confused because the chart you are citing does not support your point at all. Drugs do have different scales of harm, but you can't honestly say that this study (or any evidence) shows that cannabis and carrots are both in the same universe of being "drugs." You aren't even showing that cannabis and sugar are on the same scale. I'm sure you would agree that anything whose impact on yourself and others is comparable to cocaine has the "standard" downsides of drug use.
- quesera 2y ago
  Combustion/smoke products are the vast majority of the to-self harm in cannabis consumption, yes I do believe that. I don't know of data one way or another (remember, Schedule I for no good reason), but we do know that combustion products are harmful and that other combusted drugs are more harmful, so my intuition and experience suggests that most of the harm from combusted cannabis is the combustion. No one smokes placebo (probably not even possible), so there's no convenient baseline. To your other points -- the chart is for "recreational drugs" which chocolate is obviously not generally considered to be. It's not regulated, which is inherently disqualifying for this purpose. That doesn't mean it isn't psychoactive (it absolutely is, albeit to a significantly lesser degree, inviting the question of where to draw the line and why). > This is a drug that has negative effects on the user and on others around the user, and no, those effects are not just about smoking of the drug - taking a mind-altering substance in edible form still alters your mind. This is your assertion, but that doesn't make it a fact. Altering your mind is not, for example, necessarily a negative effect. Short term or long term. > In terms of "harm to others" on that chart, your drug of choice rates worse than cocaine! That harm, by the way, is not about secondary smoke and does not magically go away when you eat the substance instead of inhaling it. OK and what is the harm of cocaine use to others? Crime? Note that cocaine (distinct from crack) is not a popular street crime drug in the last 40 years, but clearly there are social and medical impacts from its use, and trafficking is concomitant with all sorts of badness. Most of this does not apply to cannabis, and anyway, there are obvious solutions to those issues. I do struggle to imagine the "harm to others" in cannabis use. Perhaps you have some ideas? I would love to see an honest accounting of harm from cannabis. And sugar. I'm not too worried about carrots. I suspect the to-self and to-others harm from sugar is higher than that from cannabis, although not on a serving-to-serving comparison. I would suggest greater moderation with cannabis than sugar, but that is also the natural use pattern, and anyway it is not my place or yours to make that decision for any other competent adult. My central position here is that, in moderation, cannabis is innocuous and doesn't deserve the fearful restrictions placed upon it for (mostly) bad reasons by (sometimes very) bad people. The ongoing legalization efforts are appropriate and reasonable, just extremely overdue and unevenly distributed, for now. And not-in-moderation, cannabis is still less harmful than a lot of other options. And they are options, don't imagine that "not good for you" is a sufficient reason to dissuade the general population from doing a thing. So advantaging the less-harmful option is proper policy.

Wait, so the chart and study that are cited there indicate that cannabis is a lot more harmful than ketamine, but somehow that makes it free and clear in your book because it's half as bad as alcohol? Or is your explanation that smoked cannabis is somehow where all the harm comes from (even the social harm which has nothing to do with ingestion method)? I don't see chocolate or sugar on that chart at all, so they must not be "drugs" or they must not be harmful anywhere near the scale of cannabis. The source you are citing actually makes my point for me. This is a drug that has negative effects on the user and on others around the user, and no, those effects are not just about smoking of the drug - taking a mind-altering substance in edible form still alters your mind. In terms of "harm to others" on that chart, your drug of choice rates worse than cocaine! That harm, by the way, is not about secondary smoke and does not magically go away when you eat the substance instead of inhaling it. I'm honestly confused because the chart you are citing does not support your point at all. Drugs do have different scales of harm, but you can't honestly say that this study (or any evidence) shows that cannabis and carrots are both in the same universe of being "drugs." You aren't even showing that cannabis and sugar are on the same scale. I'm sure you would agree that anything whose impact on yourself and others is comparable to cocaine has the "standard" downsides of drug use.

quesera 2y ago
Combustion/smoke products are the vast majority of the to-self harm in cannabis consumption, yes I do believe that. I don't know of data one way or another (remember, Schedule I for no good reason), but we do know that combustion products are harmful and that other combusted drugs are more harmful, so my intuition and experience suggests that most of the harm from combusted cannabis is the combustion. No one smokes placebo (probably not even possible), so there's no convenient baseline. To your other points -- the chart is for "recreational drugs" which chocolate is obviously not generally considered to be. It's not regulated, which is inherently disqualifying for this purpose. That doesn't mean it isn't psychoactive (it absolutely is, albeit to a significantly lesser degree, inviting the question of where to draw the line and why). > This is a drug that has negative effects on the user and on others around the user, and no, those effects are not just about smoking of the drug - taking a mind-altering substance in edible form still alters your mind. This is your assertion, but that doesn't make it a fact. Altering your mind is not, for example, necessarily a negative effect. Short term or long term. > In terms of "harm to others" on that chart, your drug of choice rates worse than cocaine! That harm, by the way, is not about secondary smoke and does not magically go away when you eat the substance instead of inhaling it. OK and what is the harm of cocaine use to others? Crime? Note that cocaine (distinct from crack) is not a popular street crime drug in the last 40 years, but clearly there are social and medical impacts from its use, and trafficking is concomitant with all sorts of badness. Most of this does not apply to cannabis, and anyway, there are obvious solutions to those issues. I do struggle to imagine the "harm to others" in cannabis use. Perhaps you have some ideas? I would love to see an honest accounting of harm from cannabis. And sugar. I'm not too worried about carrots. I suspect the to-self and to-others harm from sugar is higher than that from cannabis, although not on a serving-to-serving comparison. I would suggest greater moderation with cannabis than sugar, but that is also the natural use pattern, and anyway it is not my place or yours to make that decision for any other competent adult. My central position here is that, in moderation, cannabis is innocuous and doesn't deserve the fearful restrictions placed upon it for (mostly) bad reasons by (sometimes very) bad people. The ongoing legalization efforts are appropriate and reasonable, just extremely overdue and unevenly distributed, for now. And not-in-moderation, cannabis is still less harmful than a lot of other options. And they are options, don't imagine that "not good for you" is a sufficient reason to dissuade the general population from doing a thing. So advantaging the less-harmful option is proper policy.