5 ms·

It's a humanitarian issue for sure, and not just for the controversy surrounding the War on Drugs. Prohibition of marijuana is an attack on science and medicine

It's a humanitarian issue for sure, and not just for the controversy surrounding the War on Drugs. Prohibition of marijuana is an attack on science and medicine. To outlaw a plant which undeniably benefits cancer and Alzheimer patients [1], and people in excruciating pain is to deny people the will to live. And why? Because a central authority stipulates you shouldn't be allowed to live, if it means you'd ingest a certain plant. Over 4,000 Americans every day are diagnosed with some form of cancer. Meanwhile the government in these situations recommends you heed the advice of your friendly neighborhood big pharma corporation, and heal yourself in a way that makes powerful interest groups millions upon millions of dollars. Otherwise, you might as well just die. This is about giving people in need a second chance at life, at a price they can afford. In 2012, the only reason you would be against legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes is if you're ignorant, or profiting from it somehow. [1] http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507 http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

aes256 14y ago
This is about recreational, not medicinal use. Edit: Don't know why this is being downvoted. Medicinal and recreational use are separate issues, with separate arguments for and against each. To call cannabis prohibition "an attack on science and medicine" is also rather disingenuous. Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1] Painting the issue as black and white, and conflating arguments for medicinal and recreational use, is not conducive to rational debate. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738
- jrogers65 14y ago
  The increased risk of psychotic symptoms only applies to strains which have a high ratio of THC to Cannabidiol (i.e. Sativa strains). Cannabidiol dominant strains (i.e. Indica strains), on the other hand, are anti-psychotic. Unfortunately, this fact has not yet reached common culture and people continue to treat the different strains as one homogenous drug, which is extremely inaccurate. I agree that the dangers of Sativa strains are not properly recognised by the drug using community. There is a lot of denial on both sides of the fence and relatively little objective truth. The problem is that everyone is arguing out of emotion instead of taking a sober look at the situation. The line between clinical and recreational is arbitrary and subjective. Even in a recreational setting, people are, in fact, often using drugs to self-medicate. If someone feels perfectly balanced then they will not crave anything. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with self-medicating - personally, I believe that people should be responsible for their own health instead of deferring it to a third party in the first place if they are so capable. Anyway, nobody should be downvoted for their opinion. This kind of behaviour is endemic in social media sites where there is a voting mechanism. Give people an inch of power and they will take a mile, responsibility be damned.
  - aes256 14y ago
    My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains, and thus most 'street' cannabis is the latter kind. It gets you 'high' but is devoid of any significant medical benefits, and may in fact negatively impact your mental health. Many in the pro-legalization camp have been using medicinal cannabis as a kind of trojan horse for full-scale legalization. This is a dangerous, disingenuous strategy, and makes them no better than those on the other side of the fence pushing 'reefer madness' type arguments. As with all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains" Other way around actually. Indica strains grow faster and are easier to grow. Most street cannabis strains are hybrid, where they are trying to get the high THC of sativa but with the favorable growing characteristics of indica.
      - aes256 14y ago
        It's fair to say I'm no expert on cultivating cannabis! I think the idea more generally (can't remember where I heard this, think it was one of the many documentaries focussing on dispensaries) was just that those growing 'street' weed aim for high THC and don't care all that much about CBD, while those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible.
        jrogers65 14y ago
        I think I see where the confusion is. The Indica "brick weed" that's commonly sold is typically imported from countries where it grows naturally in the wild. The Sativa strains you're referring to tend to be grown in the setting of domestic indoor operations. The Sativa strains are more expensive and are in higher demand and are higher risk due to a) the time that it takes to grow them and b) the fact that it's being done in a high security and low corruption country. This provides motive to grow them as quickly as possible and make them hard hitters when smoked. You want to produce the most "bang for buck" in terms of the physical space you have available, so high concentrations of the most noticeable compound (THC) are favourable. There is also a higher correlation between hardcore drug use and those strong strains, whereas more casual users are likely to buy the Indica brick weed. All of those documentaries are probably referring to the hardcore users, not casual users. They are addressing a real concern but gloss over the fact that the reality is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
- w0utert 14y ago
  >> Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms I'm not disputing cannabis has no dangers associated with it, but similar studies that reached that conclusion that I know of always mention that the increased psychosis risks are almost exclusively apparent in people who started using at very young age (up to 16). Similar effects are observed in alcohol use at young age, which is exactly why we have age limits on buying alcohol. Lot's of other factors can contribute to the development of psychotic symptoms that are not prohibited by law by the way. I know this sounds like the 'broken window' fallacy, but of all the things with possible negative health effects, I think cannabis is really one of the least important ones to worry about.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1] AFAIK all studies on psychosis and marijuana have been cohort studies, which are essentially useless at determining the direction of causation. While the study you linked attempts to address the possibility of "reverse causality", it only addresses one specific hypothesis (self medication). Let us repeat this to ourselves until we all remember: You cannot establish direction of causation with a cohort study.
dasil003 14y ago
> Prohibition of marijuana is an attack on science and medicine. The really interesting part of the history of marijuana prohibition is that it was specifically designed as an attack on industrial hemp, funded in large part by Dow chemical so they could sell their shitty synthetic replacements for hemp products. The word marijuana itself was brought into the English lexicon for the lobbying effort in order to leverage anti-Mexican racism in painting cannabis as a dangerous drug.

aes256 14y ago

This is about recreational, not medicinal use. Edit: Don't know why this is being downvoted. Medicinal and recreational use are separate issues, with separate arguments for and against each. To call cannabis prohibition "an attack on science and medicine" is also rather disingenuous. Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1] Painting the issue as black and white, and conflating arguments for medicinal and recreational use, is not conducive to rational debate. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738 http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738

jrogers65 14y ago
The increased risk of psychotic symptoms only applies to strains which have a high ratio of THC to Cannabidiol (i.e. Sativa strains). Cannabidiol dominant strains (i.e. Indica strains), on the other hand, are anti-psychotic. Unfortunately, this fact has not yet reached common culture and people continue to treat the different strains as one homogenous drug, which is extremely inaccurate. I agree that the dangers of Sativa strains are not properly recognised by the drug using community. There is a lot of denial on both sides of the fence and relatively little objective truth. The problem is that everyone is arguing out of emotion instead of taking a sober look at the situation. The line between clinical and recreational is arbitrary and subjective. Even in a recreational setting, people are, in fact, often using drugs to self-medicate. If someone feels perfectly balanced then they will not crave anything. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with self-medicating - personally, I believe that people should be responsible for their own health instead of deferring it to a third party in the first place if they are so capable. Anyway, nobody should be downvoted for their opinion. This kind of behaviour is endemic in social media sites where there is a voting mechanism. Give people an inch of power and they will take a mile, responsibility be damned.
- aes256 14y ago
  My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains, and thus most 'street' cannabis is the latter kind. It gets you 'high' but is devoid of any significant medical benefits, and may in fact negatively impact your mental health. Many in the pro-legalization camp have been using medicinal cannabis as a kind of trojan horse for full-scale legalization. This is a dangerous, disingenuous strategy, and makes them no better than those on the other side of the fence pushing 'reefer madness' type arguments. As with all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains" Other way around actually. Indica strains grow faster and are easier to grow. Most street cannabis strains are hybrid, where they are trying to get the high THC of sativa but with the favorable growing characteristics of indica.
    - aes256 14y ago
      It's fair to say I'm no expert on cultivating cannabis! I think the idea more generally (can't remember where I heard this, think it was one of the many documentaries focussing on dispensaries) was just that those growing 'street' weed aim for high THC and don't care all that much about CBD, while those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible.
      - jrogers65 14y ago
        I think I see where the confusion is. The Indica "brick weed" that's commonly sold is typically imported from countries where it grows naturally in the wild. The Sativa strains you're referring to tend to be grown in the setting of domestic indoor operations. The Sativa strains are more expensive and are in higher demand and are higher risk due to a) the time that it takes to grow them and b) the fact that it's being done in a high security and low corruption country. This provides motive to grow them as quickly as possible and make them hard hitters when smoked. You want to produce the most "bang for buck" in terms of the physical space you have available, so high concentrations of the most noticeable compound (THC) are favourable. There is also a higher correlation between hardcore drug use and those strong strains, whereas more casual users are likely to buy the Indica brick weed. All of those documentaries are probably referring to the hardcore users, not casual users. They are addressing a real concern but gloss over the fact that the reality is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
w0utert 14y ago
>> Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms I'm not disputing cannabis has no dangers associated with it, but similar studies that reached that conclusion that I know of always mention that the increased psychosis risks are almost exclusively apparent in people who started using at very young age (up to 16). Similar effects are observed in alcohol use at young age, which is exactly why we have age limits on buying alcohol. Lot's of other factors can contribute to the development of psychotic symptoms that are not prohibited by law by the way. I know this sounds like the 'broken window' fallacy, but of all the things with possible negative health effects, I think cannabis is really one of the least important ones to worry about.
mistercow 14y ago
>especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1] AFAIK all studies on psychosis and marijuana have been cohort studies, which are essentially useless at determining the direction of causation. While the study you linked attempts to address the possibility of "reverse causality", it only addresses one specific hypothesis (self medication). Let us repeat this to ourselves until we all remember: You cannot establish direction of causation with a cohort study.

dasil003 14y ago

> Prohibition of marijuana is an attack on science and medicine. The really interesting part of the history of marijuana prohibition is that it was specifically designed as an attack on industrial hemp, funded in large part by Dow chemical so they could sell their shitty synthetic replacements for hemp products. The word marijuana itself was brought into the English lexicon for the lobbying effort in order to leverage anti-Mexican racism in painting cannabis as a dangerous drug.