Originally posted by inimalist
there are plenty of negative, very serious, and long term effects of smoking pot. An overdose or cancer are unlikely, harm to the user is not.
I haven't heard of any longterm effects, and if I'm reading right, are some of you saying civilization would collapse at the legalization of marijuana?
Originally posted by Davis Bloome
I haven't heard of any longterm effects
Mild suppression of the immune system occurs eventually. Some respiratory problems and damage to the lungs (takes much longer with a vaporizer). Increased risk of heart attacks.
Unfortunately it's difficult to study illegal substances and people are all too happy to ignore twist and invent "facts" to make them fit the version they want.
This is purely anecdotal, but all the heavy marijuana users I know have terrible memories.
Still, harmful side-effects or no, that's certainly no reason to make it illegal. People smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and take varied prescription drugs that cause or can cause irreversible damage, yet those are allowed because it's a choice.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unfortunately it's difficult to study illegal substances and people are all too happy to ignore twist and invent "facts" to make them fit the version they want.
What makes Pot difficult to study? The pharmecutical companies grow it and sell; I don't understand how much easier it could be to study.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
What makes Pot difficult to study? The pharmecutical companies grow it and sell; I don't understand how much easier it could be to study.
Most people that can legally use pot already have something wrong with them. There is a difficulty in finding a good varied cross section of the population to study and especially in finding a large number of people who are basically healthy to begin with. I would assume it would be far easier to get accurate information if pot was legal.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most people that can legally use pot already have something wrong with them. There is a difficulty in finding a good varied cross section of the population to study and especially in finding a large number of people who are basically healthy to begin with. I would assume it would be far easier to get accurate information if pot was legal.
But if it's being prescribed in association with certain physical or mental problems, then certainly it's undergone some form of study. On the flip side of that, I saw a commercial asking for volunteers to participate in a study that researched the long term effects of smoking pot. They asked for men or women between the ages of 18 and 60 who smoked pot more than three times a week. Now, I assume this is either done discreetly or anonymously.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Take advantage how?
So, in Amsterdam, criminal organizations will set up, and using the lax laws surrounding marijuana cultivation, grow it and export it to the rest of Europe.
Because the only real crime they are committing is the exporting, maybe minor offenses for growing too many plants or something, they are relatively safe to do business.
So, the theory goes, if Canada were to legalize pot, American gangs/mafias would come to Canada for the specific purpose of growing "legal" pot, then exporting it to America.
its more complex, as these gangs aren't moving in for local turf, nor are they likely to be shooting each other all over the place (they want the safety of no-prohibition, it would be foolish to draw attention through violence), however, it does make them more powerful in America, and violence is part of the organized crime package.
Originally posted by Davis Bloome
I haven't heard of any longterm effects
well, when you smoke pot, you are inhaling smoke.
so, even without any of the chemicals in pot, one has the long term effects of smoke inhalation.
otherwise, both depression and anxiety issues have been attributed to heavy marijuana use (and from the most recent stuff I've seen, its not that depressed or anxious people smoke more pot, but that pot is apparently causative).
There is also the issue that marijuana consumption is not screened for by doctors like alcohol or cigarettes are (at the very least, people are less likely to admit to illegal drug use). The contribution of marijuana to any individual's death is never even looked for, not that I believe it would be substantial or anything.
There is other stuff, like low sperm count or whatever, but I don't have any info at my fingertips, and like was mentioned by Sym, there is so much misinformation about drugs...
Originally posted by Robtard
This is purely anecdotal, but all the heavy marijuana users I know have terrible memories.
ok, so there is this part of your brain called the hippocampus
it is, amongst many other things, sort of crucial for memory and organization. When you are remembering something actively, in working memory, as in you are focusing on a task, neurons in the hippocampus receive information from the necessary brain areas, and then fire in a pattern. That pattern is, assumedly, the information necessary for the task being organized together.
Marijuana causes random firing of neurons in the hippocampus. the typical pot head move of walking into a room and instantly forgetting what they were doing there is an example of this.
(oh man, and I bet I've got a 4th post in me too, go drugs)
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
What makes Pot difficult to study? The pharmecutical companies grow it and sell; I don't understand how much easier it could be to study.
which pharmaceutical companies are growing pot?
There are a number of reasons that all drugs are very difficult to study.
The first is, as pointed out before, that there are impossible ethical hurdles to randomly assigning people to "drug taker" groups for proper controls, and people who already take drugs might do so for a number of different reasons (ie: can't control out people who self-medicate, etc) or might be poly-drug users, which makes the data highly suspect (this is more of a problem in chemical drug studies, as it is very hard to find someone who uses meth, but not E).
Second is what you are trying to study. Something like how pot affects driving is possible, using proper controls to see if pot gives someone cancer, or causes birth defects, is not, unless one does a number of very long term studies [see below]. This is a problem faced by cigarettes and other substances, though, and Ill get to this in a second, the illegal nature of pot has been very limiting to how much research could be done on it.
Which is the biggest problem. It is only in the past, MAYBE, decade that scientists have been allowed to look at the affects of drugs in a non-propagandist paradigm. Going by the literature, there are some research teams that are heavily into studying it for harm/medicinal purposes, but really nothing outside of that. Talking with some of my profs about the potential of using LSD in research, they generally told me that it is possible, yet not worth the bureaucracy required to study drugs. I don't know if pot would be as tightly controlled.
The problem with researching pot is not the substance itself. It would likely be no more difficult that cigarettes to ascertain information about (I'm not saying that it is easy, as many ethical obstacles still remain). The problem is the culture of the war on drugs.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Now, I assume this is either done discreetly or anonymously.
this is a requirement of all scientific research. Ethics boards will often require that any personal information taken from subjects is kept encrypted and in a locked drawer, to be destroyed after the completion of the experiment.
Originally posted by inimalist
which pharmaceutical companies are growing pot?There are a number of reasons that all drugs are very difficult to study.
The first is, as pointed out before, that there are impossible ethical hurdles to randomly assigning people to "drug taker" groups for proper controls, and people who already take drugs might do so for a number of different reasons (ie: can't control out people who self-medicate, etc) or might be poly-drug users, which makes the data highly suspect (this is more of a problem in chemical drug studies, as it is very hard to find someone who uses meth, but not E).
Second is what you are trying to study. Something like how pot affects driving is possible, using proper controls to see if pot gives someone cancer, or causes birth defects, is not, unless one does a number of very long term studies [see below]. This is a problem faced by cigarettes and other substances, though, and Ill get to this in a second, the illegal nature of pot has been very limiting to how much research could be done on it.
Which is the biggest problem. It is only in the past, MAYBE, decade that scientists have been allowed to look at the affects of drugs in a non-propagandist paradigm. Going by the literature, there are some research teams that are heavily into studying it for harm/medicinal purposes, but really nothing outside of that. Talking with some of my profs about the potential of using LSD in research, they generally told me that it is possible, yet not worth the bureaucracy required to study drugs. I don't know if pot would be as tightly controlled.
The problem with researching pot is not the substance itself. It would likely be no more difficult that cigarettes to ascertain information about (I'm not saying that it is easy, as many ethical obstacles still remain). The problem is the culture of the war on drugs.
As a controlled substance it can only be grown with the government's permission and they aren't handing out the permission to grow it to just anyone with a back yard.
But, as I said before, these same companies are the staunchest opponents of the legalization of marijuana, along with a government that sees the potential for tax profits.
To my knowledge, pot is as tightly controlled as LSD, but I could be wrong about that. I'm fairly certain it is under the same classification as LSD, though. However, I personally dismiss the entanglements of ethical matters in pot research. I'm not a scientist who participates in clinical medical research, so that matter is up to that individual. I don't really argue with anything else you've said. I'm not really under the impression that beyond the medical uses and discerning the extent of damage due to it's use reasearch of any kind would really interest the medical community. Like many issues in this country, politics have demonized an issue so that one party or the other can come along and solve the problem or make it worse and everyone is forced to take one side or the other. Not many people in this country would tolerate another prohibition of alcohol, but it doesn't take millions of dollars in research and dozens of personnel to study the harmful effects of that substance, much less smoking; both of which are legal and beyond the debate of ethics when it comes to the law. The face my party choses to place on that closed debate is the fat ass redneck with the gun rack and a flag tatoo who gets interviewed in front of his trailer with a beer in his hand and then goes on about hippies and their dope smoking, anti-America ways. Sadly, this is the same stereotype hoisted on us when it comes to personal freedoms and the government getting too uppity. Sadly, that character is of so little importance when it comes to this debate that it distracts people from the fact that it's politicians and drug companies who are keeping marijuana illegal, not tubby dumbass screaming about his rights at a tea party, sucking on his beer can.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
it doesn't take millions of dollars in research and dozens of personnel to study the harmful effects of that substance
That depends on what level of detail you want to get. I'm pretty sure any sort of in depth study of the effects of pretty much any sort of substance would cost millions of dollars at a minimum. Anecdotal research is free, certainly, but far from scientific.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That depends on what level of detail you want to get. I'm pretty sure any sort of in depth study of the effects of pretty much any sort of substance would cost millions of dollars at a minimum. Anecdotal research is free, certainly, but far from scientific.
In in depth study used to discoer rare reactions to smoking MJ would certainly take lots of time and money. The sample size would have to be in the thousands and include as many races as possible.
Also, in order to REALLY do any good research, we would have to follow MJ use for many years. Decades? Maybe.
(My comment is a tangent, and is not a contradiction to your obviously correct post, btw.)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That depends on what level of detail you want to get. I'm pretty sure any sort of in depth study of the effects of pretty much any sort of substance would cost millions of dollars at a minimum. Anecdotal research is free, certainly, but far from scientific.
As has been pointed out, the research of marijuana in any scientific detial is maybe a decade old. This is not the case with alcohol or tobacco, which has been studied at the detail you mention for decades. Those millions of dollars have already been spent. That certainly isn't to say the research doesn't continue. Both of those substances have huge lobbies behind them that look for any positive to exploit in order to sell their product. Perhaps it would be beneficial to scientific study if pot was legal so the research could be funded by the companies that sell it to the public.
Wow, very intelligent post KidRock!
Originally posted by KidRock
Legalize it and tax it. With it legalized the retards who smoke it will be able to get more of it easier, then die faster. So everyone benefits.
You are so intuitive arent you? What a logical and intelligent assesment you have made. First of all, if you think people who smoke marijuana aren't smart and that smoking it makes them "dumb" then you truly have it completely backwards my friend. Plenty of very successful people smoke marijuana daily, people you probably know personally and yet have no clue of their recreational habits. Infact most successful marijuana users keep it very secret as they know how brainwashed the world is by the goverment and how "frowned upon" marijuana is by society due to propagana and the "war on drugs" as the government loves to call it. Seriously if you want to know why marijuana was criminalized in the first place, then do your research and learn a little something about history, then you'll learn who makes the real money off the "war on drugs". And Second of all, People don't die from smoking pot smarty pants. Not only do you know nothing about History, or Government policies, you obviously know nothing aboout Health or Biology either. Show me the bodies from marijuana use! now count the bodies that die from Alcohol Poisoning, Liver Failure, Lung Cancer from Cigarettes, Automobile fatalities due to Alcohol,ect ect, the list goes on. Now show me one person that dies from smoking marijuana? Do you not know that scientists and doctors have proven that it is impossible to "overdose" on marijuana. Also there have been extensive studies on the affects of Marijuana use on the brain, and in some cases potential Heath benifits. So don't go posting retarded remarks like this unless you a single shred of eveidence, or at least a clue about what your talking about. Do your homework before you go out on a limb and make yourself look stupid, judgemental, and most of all brainwashed & blinded by the multimedia and everything else around you, that you see and hear on T.V, Radio, Internet, and Magazines.
Read between the lines
Re: Wow, very intelligent post KidRock!
Originally posted by Jonathan_Reese
You are so intuitive arent you? What a logical and intelligent assesment you have made. First of all, if you think people who smoke marijuana aren't smart and that smoking it makes them "dumb" then you truly have it completely backwards my friend. Plenty of very successful people smoke marijuana daily, people you probably know personally and yet have no clue of their recreational habits. Infact most successful marijuana users keep it very secret as they know how brainwashed the world is by the goverment and how "frowned upon" marijuana is by society due to propagana and the "war on drugs" as the government loves to call it. Seriously if you want to know why marijuana was criminalized in the first place, then do your research and learn a little something about history, then you'll learn who makes the real money off the "war on drugs". And Second of all, People don't die from smoking pot smarty pants. Not only do you know nothing about History, or Government policies, you obviously know nothing aboout Health or Biology either. Show me the bodies from marijuana use! now count the bodies that die from Alcohol Poisoning, Liver Failure, Lung Cancer from Cigarettes, Automobile fatalities due to Alcohol,ect ect, the list goes on. Now show me one person that dies from smoking marijuana? Do you not know that scientists and doctors have proven that it is impossible to "overdose" on marijuana. Also there have been extensive studies on the affects of Marijuana use on the brain, and in some cases potential Heath benifits. So don't go posting retarded remarks like this unless you a single shred of eveidence, or at least a clue about what your talking about. Do your homework before you go out on a limb and make yourself look stupid, judgemental, and most of all brainwashed & blinded by the multimedia and everything else around you, that you see and hear on T.V, Radio, Internet, and Magazines.Read between the lines
lol, it's called a rhetorical device, namely, exaggeration.
and cosign 100% with sym, again
Originally posted by dadudemon
In in depth study used to discoer rare reactions to smoking MJ would certainly take lots of time and money. The sample size would have to be in the thousands and include as many races as possible.
It is more complex than that even. The race thing is good, I wouldn't have even considered that, but like, people's medical histories (not just ailments, but the medication they took), marijuana use, other drug use, etc would have to be controlled for. I think gender would be a very important one to look at, as I know few girls who get high the way boys do.
Smaller sample sizes might be ok, since it is more important to have replication than a single definitive study. It all depends on the "probability of correctness" [p value] you want, and if it is a strong effect, you can probably get a significant one with maybe 2 dozen people. Large sample sizes also suffer from false positive problems. Large samples can make non-significant effects appear significant, though this is best if you are looking for that 1-in-1 000 000 marijuana effect.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, in order to REALLY do any good research, we would have to follow MJ use for many years. Decades? Maybe.
the problem is more one of ethics with this. You could take a child, make them smoke pot every day, and within a few years you would have a good result. Not a very long study, especially considering how long medical studies usually take.
However, the current ethical regime in science sort of forbids this sort of thing. I've never tried to run a study like that, so I can't say where the gray area is or whatever, but the harm caused by the drug makes it unethical to subject participants to it. Further, because of this, the only people who can be studied as "pot smokers" are people who are pot smokers by choice, and not by random assignment.
Again, not uncommon, as there are many things that can't be randomly assigned, like gender or age, yet these are studied in controlled settings all the time. Why drugs are so difficult is because, and I'd go on a limb to say at least 30-40% (pot included) of drug use is symptomatic of other physical, mental or social problems in a person's life. So this runs into the first part, about how difficult it would be to find people who are just "pot smokers", especially given the ethical concerns with randomly assigning people to a "pot smoker" experimental group.