Is Weed Really Safe?

[SDBoiler1]

The evidence isn't conclusive, but it seems to be leaning towards no? There appear to be links between weed usage and schizophrenia, for one thing. Why is the left and the media continually pushing to legalize weed in more and more states?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/14/is-marijuana-as-safe-as-we-think

 

[pcboiler]

It doesn't have to be 100% safe to justify legalization. There are plenty of articles discussing a correlation between alcohol and schizophrenia.

 

[chiefboiler23]

Safe is such a relative word. The key is moderation, like with anything else. Weed is no more or less safe than tobacco, alcohol, fried chicken, etc. There are plenty of things these days that are harmful to our bodies that are not only legal, but marketed to consumers. I don't smoke, but I am 100% on board with legalization because it is easy tax revenue and quite frankly dumb not to.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Probably safer than alcohol and certainly safer than nicotine/cigarettes. Generally not considered addictive and not consumed either consistently or via binge like the other two are. That said, it is also more dangerous than nicotine because of the judgment and imparement issues it can create. I am generally in favor of legalization, but will likely never use it. I think it makes sense to decriminalize it for the above reasons in addition to the fact that it should free up police from worrying about stuff like two kids possessing weed. I also think it makes sense to tax the hell out of it.

 

[SqueakyClean]

My only caveat would be that there have been studies that have proven that use of weed by kids does stunt their brain growth. So, like alcohol, I would think that having a minimum age limit would be appropriate.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

I think "weed" is dangerous but I think there are chemicals in marijuana that need to be legal for those who have a medical need and for study. My friend was prescribed a chemical derived from marijuana because she had no appetite after chemo. It helped her a lot and was considered to have few side effects.

 

[SDBoiler1]

It doesn't have to be 100% safe to justify legalization. There are plenty of articles discussing a correlation between alcohol and schizophrenia.

So, your point is let's make more schizophrenics? Come on.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Probably safer than alcohol and certainly safer than nicotine/cigarettes. Generally not considered addictive and not consumed either consistently or via binge like the other two are. That said, it is also more dangerous than nicotine because of the judgment and imparement issues it can create. I am generally in favor of legalization, but will likely never use it. I think it makes sense to decriminalize it for the above reasons in addition to the fact that it should free up police from worrying about stuff like two kids possessing weed. I also think it makes sense to tax the hell out of it.

If cigarettes can lead to lung cancer, why would smoking weed not as well?

 

[SDBoiler1]

I think "weed" is dangerous but I think there are chemicals in marijuana that need to be legal for those who have a medical need and for study. My friend was prescribed a chemical derived from marijuana because she had no appetite after chemo. It helped her a lot and was considered to have few side effects.

Weed is also quite helpful for those suffering from glaucoma.

 

[mk_peters]

Weed is also quite helpful for those suffering from glaucoma.

Weed is also known to eradicate that stick up your ass.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If cigarettes can lead to lung cancer, why would smoking weed not as well?

Because you don’t smoke as much weed, and cancer is a stochastic effect; the more you smoke, the more likely cancer becomes, but there is no deterministic threshold for it, so a nonsmoker may get lung cancer, but it’s far less likely than the pack a day guy, who is less likely to get lung cancer than the two pack a day guy.

 

[pcboiler]

So, your point is let's make more schizophrenics? Come on.

So, your point is for every unsubstantiated claim that implies a loose correlation, it's enough to make it illegal? The medical community is pretty consistent in that there has not been nearly enough research to make a claim like "weed makes schizophrenics". And lets be real, weed has been used and abused for millennia, if there was any sort of credible, consistent relationship like that, society would have figured it out by now.

 

[ecouch]

So, your point is let's make more schizophrenics? Come on.

Go back and review the literature. Cannabis consumption doesn't "make more schizophrenics". There may be a connection between adolescent youths who have a predisposition towards phycosis developing it a few years earlier if they consume cannabis during their brain's formative years. Given that family/genetics are the biggest driver, confounded with other environmental factors, putting a number on it is difficult. Another point, schizophrenic disorder (diagnosed early in life in the majority of cases) diagnoses has remained constant over the years, including those post legalization.

The safe thing to do with cannabis is the same thing we do with other drugs - alcohol and nicotine. Don't allow their legal use for undeveloped, adolescent brains. Make it 21 like alcohol.

 

[Bruce1]

Probably safer than alcohol and certainly safer than nicotine/cigarettes. Generally not considered addictive and not consumed either consistently or via binge like the other two are. That said, it is also more dangerous than nicotine because of the judgment and imparement issues it can create. I am generally in favor of legalization, but will likely never use it. I think it makes sense to decriminalize it for the above reasons in addition to the fact that it should free up police from worrying about stuff like two kids possessing weed. I also think it makes sense to tax the hell out of it.

Did you read the article? Maybe Possibly.... all anecdotal comments that can be interpreted either way. It is exactly the point of the article. There still is no hard data. I say this: the human body was not designed to ingest particles through the lungs. If this stuff has medicinal affects that can be proven then prove them. If they are a useful drug then produce them in scientifically controlled environments and administer them in pill, liquid, or other form.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Did you read the article? Maybe Possibly.... all anecdotal comments that can be interpreted either way. It is exactly the point of the article. There still is no hard data. I say this: the human body was not designed to ingest particles through the lungs. If this stuff has medicinal affects that can be proven then prove them. If they are a useful drug then produce them in scientifically controlled environments and administer them in pill, liquid, or other form.

I think some of the positive uses have scientific evidence to support them - the chemical used to increase my friend's appetite after chemo was in the form of a capsule. Glaucoma is also sometimes treated with a chemical in the form of a capsule derived from marijuana. Not sure if there are medications or ??? ingested through the lungs. People use "inhalers" but I haven't a clue about what or how.

 

[mk_peters]

Did you read the article? Maybe Possibly.... all anecdotal comments that can be interpreted either way. It is exactly the point of the article. There still is no hard data. I say this: the human body was not designed to ingest particles through the lungs. If this stuff has medicinal affects that can be proven then prove them. If they are a useful drug then produce them in scientifically controlled environments and administer them in pill, liquid, or other form.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

Because the body was designed to digest pills?

You people have been duped by pill pushers.

 

[Bruce1]

Because you don’t smoke as much weed, and cancer is a stochastic effect; the more you smoke, the more likely cancer becomes, but there is no deterministic threshold for it, so a nonsmoker may get lung cancer, but it’s far less likely than the pack a day guy, who is less likely to get lung cancer than the two pack a day guy.

Overall lung health for all causes

Because the body was designed to digest pills?

You people have been duped by pill pushers.

Yes my stomach was designed to separate nutrition from poison, etc. Dumb comment. Our pulmonary system is designed to separate particles from what we breath. Go ahead and fill it full of particles and you will become sick, period.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

 

[ecouch]

Did you read the article? Maybe Possibly.... all anecdotal comments that can be interpreted either way. It is exactly the point of the article. There still is no hard data. I say this: the human body was not designed to ingest particles through the lungs. If this stuff has medicinal affects that can be proven then prove them. If they are a useful drug then produce them in scientifically controlled environments and administer them in pill, liquid, or other form.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

Inhalation and insufflation (nose, most common) are centuries old methods of quickly delivering medicine with very high levels of bioavailability. In most cases, second to only intravenous delivery. Generally, oral administration has lower onset and bioavailability. Being pedantic, O2 is a molecule, a very small particle.

 

[ecouch]

Overall lung health for all causes


Yes my stomach was designed to separate nutrition from poison, etc. Dumb comment. Our pulmonary system is designed to separate particles from what we breath. Go ahead and fill it full of particles and you will become sick, period.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

Out of curiosity, how do you think EtOH works?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Did you read the article? Maybe Possibly.... all anecdotal comments that can be interpreted either way. It is exactly the point of the article. There still is no hard data. I say this: the human body was not designed to ingest particles through the lungs. If this stuff has medicinal affects that can be proven then prove them. If they are a useful drug then produce them in scientifically controlled environments and administer them in pill, liquid, or other form.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smoking-heart-health-pot-or-tobacco/

From strictly a cancer perspective, the chemical contents of the smoke don't matter much. The radioactive particulate matter does. That is pretty consistent burning any organic material, in that you're going to get some Alpha producing particles. The more Alphas, the more likely cancer-causing mutations are to occur at the cellular level. It has nothing to do with THC, nicotine, etc. I'm talking about apples, and you're arguing with me about ground beef. As I said, it's likely less carcinogenic than cigarettes, yet they are legal. I think cannabis should be legal for 18 or 21 and up, and then tax the flying pig shit out of it like we do the other legal drugs. Otherwise, make tobacco illegal because it's probably worse for us than cannabis. Good luck with that.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Probably safer than alcohol and certainly safer than nicotine/cigarettes. Generally not considered addictive and not consumed either consistently or via binge like the other two are. That said, it is also more dangerous than nicotine because of the judgment and imparement issues it can create. I am generally in favor of legalization, but will likely never use it. I think it makes sense to decriminalize it for the above reasons in addition to the fact that it should free up police from worrying about stuff like two kids possessing weed. I also think it makes sense to tax the hell out of it.

Question....if it's not addictive, why do so many dopers have to have multiple joints every day?

 

[indy35]

Question....if it's not addictive, why do so many dopers have to have multiple joints every day?

As with every single other subject, you’re talking out your @$$ with this.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Weed is not chemically addictive. That doesn't mean you can't get addicted to it.

You can get "addicted" to anything. Gambling, Porn, Exercise, Hello Kitty. Anything really that makes you feel better.

Some addictions are just a lot easier to break.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Question....if it's not addictive, why do so many dopers have to have multiple joints every day?

I reject your entering assumption as purely argumentative and anecdotal (at best), thus your question is irrelevant. There's little scientific evidence that THC is addictive, and it is widely accepted that even if it is addictive, it is markedly less so than nicotine or alcohol.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Weed is not chemically addictive. That doesn't mean you can't get addicted to it.

You can get "addicted" to anything. Gambling, Porn, Exercise, Hello Kitty. Anything really that makes you feel better.

Some addictions are just a lot easier to break.

This is certainly reasonble. From an addiction standpoint, I am referring to chemical addiction. Just about anything can be habit-forming and therefore "addictive", and we certainly don't count on the government to regulate those activities or substances (e.g. gaming, porn, exercise, etc.).

 

[EdwardElric]

Question....if it's not addictive, why do so many dopers have to have multiple joints every day?

uh, because it is awesome?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

are we concerned with all dangerous things now? i drive fast on tracks on the weekends. are we outlawing high performance driving because i might die doing it one day? it should be legal, regulated, and taxed. we spent billions fighting a war that did nothing but strengthen a black market and turn average joes into criminal possessors. ridiculous cost to society.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

are we concerned with all dangerous things now? i drive fast on tracks on the weekends. are we outlawing high performance driving because i might die doing it one day? it should be legal, regulated, and taxed. we spent billions fighting a war that did nothing but strengthen a black market and turn average joes into criminal possessors. ridiculous cost to society.

Just to let you know, since you do HP driving, my oldest son gave me a track day with instructions at the Corvette facility in Bowling Green. Having been to the Mid Ohio driving school, and having raced go carts years ago, it should be a fun day. Might have to get a new Vette just for that.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Just to let you know, since you do HP driving, my oldest son gave me a track day with instructions at the Corvette facility in Bowling Green. Having been to the Mid Ohio driving school, and having raced go carts years ago, it should be a fun day. Might have to get a new Vette just for that.

i currently track a c5z. a good track alignment, brake and tire upgrades and its a monster. hope it doesn't rain on your date. have fun.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

i currently track a c5z. a good track alignment, brake and tire upgrades and its a monster. hope it doesn't rain on your date. have fun.

I loved my C5...comfy, roomy, good looks, and performance enough for anyone.

 

[Bruce1]

The evidence isn't conclusive, but it seems to be leaning towards no? There appear to be links between weed usage and schizophrenia, for one thing. Why is the left and the media continually pushing to legalize weed in more and more states?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/14/is-marijuana-as-safe-as-we-think

As with every single other subject, you’re talking out your @$$ with this.

There's all kinds of data out there. Pick the data that backs up your preferred position

https://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/marijuana/addictive.html

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/marijuana-addiction-rare-but-real-072014

 

[Bruce1]

As with every single other subject, you’re talking out your @$$ with this.

Have you ever responded to someone you disagree with and not called them names? Or stupid? Or .....

 

[Bruce1]

I think "weed" is dangerous but I think there are chemicals in marijuana that need to be legal for those who have a medical need and for study. My friend was prescribed a chemical derived from marijuana because she had no appetite after chemo. It helped her a lot and was considered to have few side effects.

Agree, so transform the plant into a meaningful controlled medicine. Dispense via a real Rx, etc.

 

[Bruce1]

Just to let you know, since you do HP driving, my oldest son gave me a track day with instructions at the Corvette facility in Bowling Green. Having been to the Mid Ohio driving school, and having raced go carts years ago, it should be a fun day. Might have to get a new Vette just for that.

How do I insert a pix into a post? Whenever I cut and paste a photo from my iPad it doesn’t show up when I post the reply.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Agree, so transform the plant into a meaningful controlled medicine. Dispense via a real Rx, etc.

which is difficult to do/research,
when its listed as a schedule one drug.

 

[Bruce1]

which is difficult to do/research,
when its listed as a schedule one drug.

As I understand it research can be done on schedule one drugs

https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/true-false-schedule-drugs-arent-eligible-research/

 

[indy35]

Have you ever responded to someone you disagree with and not called them names? Or stupid? Or .....

Sorry but "why do dopers have to have multiple joints every single day" isn't a legitimate argument. Make a stupid statement, get called out on it.

 

[BoilerBiker]

which is difficult to do/research,
when its listed as a schedule one drug.

As I understand it research can be done on schedule one drugs

https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/true-false-schedule-drugs-arent-eligible-research/

"Schedule I classification makes it difficult to conduct research on a substance, but not impossible."

 

[Bruce1]

Sorry but "why do dopers have to have multiple joints every single day" isn't a legitimate argument. Make a stupid statement, get called out on it.

Well that’s a typical response from you.

Heres another 30 second google on the subject.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

And another

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/marijuana-addiction-rare-but-real-072014

 

[Bruce1]

"Schedule I classification makes it difficult to conduct research on a substance, but not impossible."

Difficult, not impossible. In fact at this time there is a lot of research underway

“In fiscal year 2017, the NIH (National Institute for Drug Abuse) supported 330 projects totaling almost $140 million on cannabinoid research. Within this investment, 70 projects ($36 million) examined therapeutic properties of cannabinoids, and 26 projects ($15 million) focused on CBD. Cannabinoid research is supported broadly across NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs), with each IC supporting research specifically focused on the impact of cannabinoids on health effects within their scientific mission. NIH IC investment in each of these categories for fiscal year 2017 is shown below. Note that each category is not mutually exclusive; some projects are assigned to multiple categories.”