4 ms·

Ugh. I'm all for legalization, but the public discourse has skewed the risk perception of it. OK, it may not be as bas as alcohol, but that certainly doesn't ma

Ugh. I'm all for legalization, but the public discourse has skewed the risk perception of it. OK, it may not be as bas as alcohol, but that certainly doesn't make it harmless. For people who have access, I highly recommend this review article from June 2014 in the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the most respected scientific medical publication in the world, which goes over the published scientific litterature about Marijuana: bottom line, it's not as innofensive as some make it to be, and adolescents are most at risk. Caveat Emptor. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1402309 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1402309 (personally, I do believe it should be legalized for policy and social reasons, but that doesn't mean I think it's biologically harmless)

mlmonkey 12y ago
The problem is: the USG prevents research in the area. It is extremely hard to get permission from the DEA to research the effects of MJ. I don't believe anyone is claiming that MJ is harmless; but that overall, MJ's harm is lesser than the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco. Teens are already known to be more susceptible to chemical substances because of their developing brains, so this study doesn't seem to be very surprising.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Is that actually true in the past decade, or is it, like, true, man? (We should end cannabis prohibition, and are obviously in the process of doing that, but I'm having no trouble turning up tons of recent cannabis research studies.)
- DanBC 12y ago
  > tobacco Why would cannabis be less harmful than tobacco? The smoke from each is roughly the same, with the obvious differences being nicotine in tobacco and cannbinoids in cannabis. Maybe cannabis smokers smoke less frequently than cigarette smokers; but maybe they inhale the smoke deeper and hold it longer. It's a bit frustrating that anyone who expresses any concern about cannabis is written off as a propagandist of an oppressive government. (I'm pro legalisation)
  - pdeuchler 12y ago
    Because most people don't put rat poison in their joints? The comparison I've heard is that a regularly smoking 1 joint a day is roughly equivalent to smoking 1 self-rolled cigarette using tobacco grown without additives.
    - at-fates-hands 12y ago
      >>Because most people don't put rat poison in their joints? Correct. Unless you include users who mix in other substances to increase the efficacy of the cannabis they are smoking. I've had friends mix everything from coke, meth, crushed barbiturates and yes even tobacco in with their cannabis.
      - cstoner 12y ago
        Ummm... I don't know how to break this to you dude, but your friends aren't mixing in coke and meth to make the effects of the pot stronger. They're mixing coke and meth in to smoke coke and meth.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Smoke for smoke, cannabis and tobacco are probably equally harmful. It's the combustion of plant matter and the inhalation of smoke, not the nicotine per se, that makes tobacco so harmful. The same applies for smoked cannabis, and indeed, some studies have found cannabis smoke slightly more harmful in that regard, in so far as cannabis isn't usually smoked with a filter. But unlike tobacco, cannabis does not contain a chemical as highly addictive as nicotine. Your average tobacco smoker probably smokes an order of magnitude more tobacco than your average cannabis smoker smokes cannabis. Evidently there is a nonzero risk of physical or psychological dependency for marijuana, but it's nowhere near the risk profile of tobacco.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      > Smoke for smoke, cannabis and tobacco are probably > equally harmful. I feel like you're disagreeing with the article. If you smoke heavily from 14 and quit at 18, your health risks from tobacco will normalise to that of a non-smoker after x years, but there's a suggestion here that if it's cannabis you're smoking, you've caused yourself irreparable harm
karmacondon 12y ago
So my issue with this is that there are numerous counter examples that come readily to mind. I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that naming random exceptions is generally a poor form of argument. But, Barack Obama was in the "Choom Gang" when he was in high school, which roughly translates to the "Marijuana Gang". Think about that: The current leader of the free world smoked so much as a teenager that he and his friends named their group after the drug itself. The last three US presidents have said that they smoked marijuana as teenagers and college students. Carl Sagan was a big proponent, and there are many other successful people in the worlds of politics, science and business who smoked pot casually at the least. If it does change the structure of the brain and impair long term memory, what exactly does that mean? Whatever the effect, it apparently doesn't disqualify people from being among the most intelligent and successful in the world. Brain studies are useful, but we should be cautious when using them to draw sweeping conclusions about social policy.
- sheepmullet 12y ago
  Plenty of successful people drank Alcohol when they were younger but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the ill effects of alcohol.

mlmonkey 12y ago

The problem is: the USG prevents research in the area. It is extremely hard to get permission from the DEA to research the effects of MJ. I don't believe anyone is claiming that MJ is harmless; but that overall, MJ's harm is lesser than the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco. Teens are already known to be more susceptible to chemical substances because of their developing brains, so this study doesn't seem to be very surprising.

tptacek 12y ago
Is that actually true in the past decade, or is it, like, true, man? (We should end cannabis prohibition, and are obviously in the process of doing that, but I'm having no trouble turning up tons of recent cannabis research studies.)
DanBC 12y ago
> tobacco Why would cannabis be less harmful than tobacco? The smoke from each is roughly the same, with the obvious differences being nicotine in tobacco and cannbinoids in cannabis. Maybe cannabis smokers smoke less frequently than cigarette smokers; but maybe they inhale the smoke deeper and hold it longer. It's a bit frustrating that anyone who expresses any concern about cannabis is written off as a propagandist of an oppressive government. (I'm pro legalisation)
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  Because most people don't put rat poison in their joints? The comparison I've heard is that a regularly smoking 1 joint a day is roughly equivalent to smoking 1 self-rolled cigarette using tobacco grown without additives.
  - at-fates-hands 12y ago
    >>Because most people don't put rat poison in their joints? Correct. Unless you include users who mix in other substances to increase the efficacy of the cannabis they are smoking. I've had friends mix everything from coke, meth, crushed barbiturates and yes even tobacco in with their cannabis.
    - cstoner 12y ago
      Ummm... I don't know how to break this to you dude, but your friends aren't mixing in coke and meth to make the effects of the pot stronger. They're mixing coke and meth in to smoke coke and meth.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Smoke for smoke, cannabis and tobacco are probably equally harmful. It's the combustion of plant matter and the inhalation of smoke, not the nicotine per se, that makes tobacco so harmful. The same applies for smoked cannabis, and indeed, some studies have found cannabis smoke slightly more harmful in that regard, in so far as cannabis isn't usually smoked with a filter. But unlike tobacco, cannabis does not contain a chemical as highly addictive as nicotine. Your average tobacco smoker probably smokes an order of magnitude more tobacco than your average cannabis smoker smokes cannabis. Evidently there is a nonzero risk of physical or psychological dependency for marijuana, but it's nowhere near the risk profile of tobacco.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > Smoke for smoke, cannabis and tobacco are probably > equally harmful. I feel like you're disagreeing with the article. If you smoke heavily from 14 and quit at 18, your health risks from tobacco will normalise to that of a non-smoker after x years, but there's a suggestion here that if it's cannabis you're smoking, you've caused yourself irreparable harm

karmacondon 12y ago

So my issue with this is that there are numerous counter examples that come readily to mind. I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that naming random exceptions is generally a poor form of argument. But, Barack Obama was in the "Choom Gang" when he was in high school, which roughly translates to the "Marijuana Gang". Think about that: The current leader of the free world smoked so much as a teenager that he and his friends named their group after the drug itself. The last three US presidents have said that they smoked marijuana as teenagers and college students. Carl Sagan was a big proponent, and there are many other successful people in the worlds of politics, science and business who smoked pot casually at the least. If it does change the structure of the brain and impair long term memory, what exactly does that mean? Whatever the effect, it apparently doesn't disqualify people from being among the most intelligent and successful in the world. Brain studies are useful, but we should be cautious when using them to draw sweeping conclusions about social policy.

sheepmullet 12y ago
Plenty of successful people drank Alcohol when they were younger but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the ill effects of alcohol.