The Coin Return Foundational Fundraiser is here! Please donate!
The truth about marijuana?
billwill
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Everywhere I turn, I can't seem to find any solid information about marijuana.
Here are some claims that I found from one website:
Of course, there are dozens of websites that agree with this and dozens of websites that say the exact opposite. There can only be one right answer to each of these claims, so I'm just wondering what the correct answers are. If you comment on this, please provide evidence for your claims (such as links to studies). Of course you don't have to, but I'm not going to put much stock in your arguments if you don't.
I know that marijuana is illegal mainly because of politics and not its health effects, but that doesn't mean that there aren't negative health effects. Like, I can say the sky is blue because the ocean threw up, and of course I'd be wrong in my reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is still blue.
So to make it easier to respond I'll list some basic questions that you can answer and build off of, if you want:
1. Is marijuana addictive?
2. What are the health effects of marijuana on the human body?
Here are some claims that I found from one website:
Don’t be fooled by popular beliefs. Kids can get hooked on pot. Research shows that marijuana use can lead to addiction. Each year, more kids enter treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illegal drugs combined.
Marijuana is not a benign drug. Use impairs learning and judgment, and may lead to the development of mental health problems.
With recent research now linking marijuana use to mental health disorders like depression and schizophrenia.
Of course, there are dozens of websites that agree with this and dozens of websites that say the exact opposite. There can only be one right answer to each of these claims, so I'm just wondering what the correct answers are. If you comment on this, please provide evidence for your claims (such as links to studies). Of course you don't have to, but I'm not going to put much stock in your arguments if you don't.
I know that marijuana is illegal mainly because of politics and not its health effects, but that doesn't mean that there aren't negative health effects. Like, I can say the sky is blue because the ocean threw up, and of course I'd be wrong in my reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is still blue.
So to make it easier to respond I'll list some basic questions that you can answer and build off of, if you want:
1. Is marijuana addictive?
2. What are the health effects of marijuana on the human body?
I hate you and you hate me.
billwill on
0
Posts
2. Inhaling smoke into your lungs is always bad. Forcing chemical reactions in your brain can have adverse effects on your normal mental state.
Did you know smoking marijuana funds terrorism and can make your penis fall off?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXnUZBD_qV4
I'm just using them as examples of some of the more outrageous claims against marijauna today, and wondering where they get their basis.
I hope this clears things up.
But if I'm home, alone, and bored, and don't have pot... I get cranky. So yeah, there is some level of addiction there.
Here, presumably.
Most of the propaganda against marijuana is just that. Propaganda.
Now, people who smoke a lot of it tend to be morons... but I don't think there's causality there.
I keep hearing about how there was violence in the streets and shooting and bribes and Chicago mobsters under Prohibition back in the 30s. Alcohol became legal and at least the shootouts stopped. If you want to fight terrorism, make marijuana and opium legal!
Really?
Haven't you heard? Terrorists like growing opium.
"One of these things is not like the other..."
Anything can lead to psychological addiction. You can get addicted to food, video games, masturbation, exercise, whatever. Marijuana can be psychologically addicting just like anything else. What it isn't is physically addicting. Nicotine, heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, these thing alter your body chemistry so that you experience severe withdrawal symptoms on stopping. Shakes, severe headaches, even up to potentially life threatening reactions in some cases. Marijuana does not do this. Many of these 'studies' on dependence also define dependence as any repeated use of the drug and don't take into account things like frequency of use, reductions in quality of life or ability to function, etc.
As far as part 2, the main reason for this is that in many juristictions you can get out of a possession charge by taking a "treatment course" consisting of going to support groups and being evaluated, in lieu of having to pay a fine or do jail time.
It's like in some states you can get out of a speeding ticket by going to traffic school. Is it meaningful to then say "More kids must take courses to treat reckless and unsafe driving due to speeding than for all other traffic offenses combined?"
1) Phrasing this as a yes or no question is leading. Yes, people can be addicted to it, therefore it is addictive. That makes it sound scarier than it is, though, because as others have said, you can be addicted to video games, too. The proper question is "How addictive is it?" It's not addictive enough to cause people to steal or kill over it, in the sense that meth or heroin is.
2) Frankly, nobody's really sure. It might cause cancer or it might not. My guess is that inhaling burning plant matter isn't good for you in any context. But what if you use a vaporizer or bake it in brownies? Nobody really knows. At high enough doses and frequent enough use, it certainly impairs attention and memory. Does it do those things to moderate users? Does it do them intensely enough to be cause for concern? I don't think so.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, they do, but opium did spend a good deal of time as a popular drug and it is known that it will fuck your shit up. Admittedly, that counterargument is little more than "but...opium!" but... you know...opium, man.
With cigarettes, my addiction to them will insist on making itself known even if I'm having a good time being distracted by something else.
I suppose instead of stealing/hurting for more, you just get kinda cranky.
Edit: I basically agree with Feral.
Do you guys think it will ever be legalized in America? Isn't there a bill thats going through congress right now that is trying to make it legal to have like 3 ounces of marijuana or less on you?
Meh. I agree with Deva's overall point - the addictive potential of marijuana is less than that of nicotine, cocaine, etc.
But as I've said many times on these boards (and I'm sure the regulars are sick of hearing it) the presence or lack thereof of physical withdrawal symptoms is not in and of itself a measure of addictiveness. Many addicts fuck up their lives long before experiencing the physical symptoms of dependence. Deva mentions cocaine as a "physically" addictive drug even though the physical side effects of cocaine withdrawal are actually quite mild if they are present at all.
In fact, the popular distinction between "physical" and "psychological" addiction is largely a red herring.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh, I dunno. I could see California legalizing recreational use within 5-10 years.
Politically it's unlikely because frankly there isn't really a big marijuana lobby.
The best we can probably hope for is for it to be quietly moved to schedule 2 or 3.
It's not misleading so much as it belies a really simplistic way of thinking about addiction.
Marijuana can be addictive, but mild addictions are not necessarily scary.
"Addict" is the modern Scarlet Letter 'A' that we use to describe some subhuman state of being when in fact an addiction is just yet another habitual behavior.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Schedule 2 and 3 are less severe classifications for drugs right? (Sorry, not really an expert on this).
What would that do? Decrease the penalties for possession of marijuana?
Drug schedules are not necessarily measures of severity.
Basically, they define what controls have to be set on the manufacturing and sale of a drug. They do not define what the punishment is for violating those controls.
Schedule 2 and 3 are the drug schedules for drugs that are potentially addictive but have medicinal uses. Just as an example, cocaine is schedule 2 because it is actually approved for use as a pain-killing agent (even though it's rarely used that way), but that doesn't mean that the punishment for trafficking cocaine is less severe than the punishment for trafficking a schedule 1 drug like marijuana.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It would make it legal for doctors to prescribe, and make it legal to produce industrially, import/export, etc.
Schedule 1 is reserved for drugs that, according to the federal gov't, have no medical use and high potential for abuse. These include marijuana, LSD, heroin, etc.
Schedule 2 is for controlled and addictive but medically useful drugs, such as cocaine, morphine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, etc.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but here are my experiences on the matter.
I used to smoke pot... a lot of it too. Pretty much all the time even.
One day I decided to quit and just stopped. The day before I had smoked many multiples of bowls, and then the next day I just didn't. I never once had a physical urge to smoke again. No pangs, no mental itch, no jitters. Marijuana is just not addictive in any way more than any other non chemically addictive thing.
Not as a "here, sniff this and call me in the morning" implementation.
It is an ingredient in various forms in medicines that are used as anesthetics (for an example).
You can't be arrested directly for being high in public, for one.
Why drink Dr Pepper when you can have Coca Cola? Isn't it just personal preference?
Plus getting high is different than being drunk.
They couldn't be more different types of wasted.
Thats really like saying "My question is why does a person need to get steak when they can go out and get chicken? Isn't chicken good enough to get satiated?"
Technically, you can. Being under the influence of a controlled substance is generally a misdemeanor.
It's just that cops usually overlook people who are just high unless they're driving a car or doing something else stupid.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Edit: Ooh, and was less likely to turn people around me into assholes wanting to pick a fight.
No, but does a person 'need' alcohol? That's not really the point.
Yeah.
There are a lot of drugs that are controlled substances. Painkillers like vicodin, anti-ADHD drugs like Adderall and Ritalin, barbiturates, etc.
When a physician prescribes a controlled substance, he's usually subject to more scrutiny from the DEA and state licensing boards, and he might be subject to different restrictions depending on the state. For instance, in California, a doctor can't fax a prescription for Oxycontin to a pharmacy - he has to see the patient in person and hand them a physical prescription slip on special paper with security features like watermarks.
That's the sort of thing that the drug schedules define. They don't say that you'll be punished more harshly for misusing oxycontin, they say that doctors and pharmacies and drug manufacturers have to jump through more hoops during the manufacture and sale. The punishment for misusing such drugs is defined by entirely different laws.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.