Can anyone counter this pretty compelling argument on the medical risks?

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by bassboy2k, Mar 21, 2016.

  1. #1 bassboy2k, Mar 21, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
  2. No but you yourself need to be more critical in your reading of this article, and that will help you in the future when judging a piece on its merit.

    For example, they mention that studies show marijuana use as an adolescent has shown negative effects on the brain.

    That's obvious - no developing brain should be under the influence, which is why even alcohol is illegal for anyone under 21.

    Saying that marijuana can lead to driving accidents is also obvious. Even in terms of alcohol, you can't drink and drive.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. I couldn't get it to load properly on my mobile.

    We all have the free will to choose what we put in our body, harmful or not. We do not need something dangerous to be illegal, we need information on how to use things safely.

    Prescription drugs come with this information and are often more dangerous than cannabis.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Hmmm, it loaded fine on my Android phone. I'm with you on the free will, of course. I just feel like I've heard so many times from pro legalizers that weed is far less dangerous than alcohol and the studies in that article seem to suggest not.
  5. The article would not load up for me as well. But I do have some things to add about studies done on marijuana. One of the first studies on Cannabis commissioned back during the Nixon administration gave proof that marijuana killed the brain cells of anyone who smoked it. Fast forward and after a few legal battles a few schools were given permission to recreate that study. The study itself took a group of chimpanzees and fitted gas masks over their face. Over 100 Colombian strength joints were then pumped into the masks in under 5 mins. The Chimps died of asphyxiation. Afterwards, they examined the brains and assessed the damage. When the few schools went to recreate the results using the same method and then different methods. They found that asphyxiation killed the brain cells, some of them even found that marijuana is good for brain cell growth and has applications with Dementia and Alzheimers. That's the thing about studies, they are meaningless until they undergo the peer review process. Anyone can commission a study, and if they are paying for it they can easily say we want to find this. Again the page didn't load for me, but ask yourself this did it go into its methods on actually finding these results? Did it give enough information to recreate the study? Did it link to the published study for anybody to read? Did you read the published study and then compare the methods they use to other methods used in similar areas? Was it done in America (if it is you can't trust it). I would like to point you towards a long ongoing series of studies on the effects of marijuana on a fetus, after the woman has smoked weed during pregnancy. A cultural tradition in Jamaica, long story short after almost a decade they found it actually doesn't do a whole lot to a fetus brain. But those claims are unsubstantiated til a different group redoes the whole study and then compares the results. Science is the key to understanding everything, but you must realize that science works a specific way. And something can't be taken in as fact or a basis for argument until it's methodology for finding that answer has been reviewed extensively. So here is some pointers, take studies with a grain of salt. Until laws letting schools and universities acquire marijuana and study its effects legally are passed, we won't see many reliable studies. Only a few select schools have permission, and are funded by the state. Which means the results are probably influenced by the state. So if a study is done say in Texas, you know its going to show marijuana as a dangerous harmful substance. Doesn't matter to Texas if it is or isn't, it is a handy way to keep minorities in jail. So its a dangerous substance... Always check to see if a study on marijuana was done also in Israel, the only country to really give reliable peer review to American marijuana studies.
    • Like Like x 6
  6. Great reply Ferrin, thanks for the tips. I'll take these type of articles with a grain more of salt in future!

    Annoying that the article is loading for people though. Maybe because it had a backslash at the end for some reason. Can you try this link: Should Marijuana Be Kept Illegal?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. There was a problem with the link, this one should work ok: Should Marijuana Be Kept Illegal?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. #8 zmessengerz, Mar 31, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I think it is a legit question/concern, and where better to ask than the biggest pro-cannabis community?

    Probably best answered by Stormcrow though
    • Like Like x 1
  10. In our state's Governor's race, there are 2 decent Democratics running. One is already FOR Medical Marijuana legalization, with the possibility of recreational when more stats have been gathered from the states that legalized.

    The other candidate is an ex-prosecuting attorney, who at first was saying he's against it, but now is trying to say he wants to study it more. I argued with one of his supporters that this is a huge issue all over the country. Maybe he should have read a few articles and watched a few documentaries at least! I argued, the research has already been done, ad nauseam. There isn't time for MORE studies, and more, and more. Our state has the highest rate of overdoses from prescription meds of any state, and a lot of people are dying. Give them an alternative and allow them to grow a few plants for themselves, see what happens. Can't be any worse!!
  11. First off. There have been conflicting reports about the grey matter and the iq claim is bogus. Your iq will change naturally and can vary significantly between tests and wether you ate breakfast.
    Yes burning ANYTHING and inhaling the smoke is bad for you and does contain carcinogens, burn wheat and inhale it and your breathing carcinogens.
    Marijuana and driving vehicles is a bit more difficult. Its ability to affect a user with lower tolerance would certainly make them a risk. I myself drive high all the time and I have a perfect abstract.
    Regarding teen access and regulation. Regulating alcohol after prohibition has widely been regarding as the best and only real practical move in response to abuse and a thriving black market. Other nations have found that control through regulation has a positive impact. Less incarcerated people and lower use among teens. Interesting to note that in states that have legalized marijuana it tripled projected tax revenues. In Washington it was expects to make 56 million in a year, it tripled that in the first quarter.
    Probably the most difficult thing about legalization is that it can't be touted as recreational and be used as prescription medicine. The law can't make specific exceptions like that. If it's prescribed its a controlled substance and therfore growing or using recreationally is against the law. If it's legalized recreationally it can not be prescribed by doctors and using it could cause issues with insurance.

    Sent from my VS985 4G using Grasscity Forum mobile app
    • Like Like x 1
  12. #13 zmessengerz, Apr 24, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  13. #14 zmessengerz, Apr 24, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  14. Smoking cigarettes is bad for you,and so is drinking.Smoking cannabis is supposed to be no more harmful than smoking and drinking.I was under the impression brain cells die all through life from birth.I also thought that brain cells don't repair they die from whatever and naturally

    Can all these studies be wrong?[/QUOTE]
  15. I'm a healthcare provider so, hopefully, maybe my 2 cents will have a little weight.

    Studies can always be wrong because no individual study proves anything, it's through repeating the studies under the same parameters and yielding the same results that validate a studies results. There are also a few sayings we throw around that apply to studies-

    "Anecdote is not data"
    "The plural of anecdote is not data"
    "Subjectivity only interprets objectivity"
    "Correlation does not equal causation"

    We've discovered quite a few scary facts about many things throughout the years, but the point of these type of studies is to differentiate between correlation "We've noticed thing A and thing B happen coincidentally together" and causation "We've affirmed thing A happens BECAUSE thing B happens". What happens oftentimes with studies pertaining to controversial topics is whomever is writing an article uses confirmation bias to pick out details they believe support their opinion and either skew/misrepresent incomplete pieces of data or extrapolate their own understanding of what a piece of data means and represent it as if that's what it absolutely means.

    There is no question as to whether marijuana has potential risk(s) involved with usage, but these risk(s) are far outweighed by the risk(s) of just about every substance you can get your hands on, including acetaminophen (Tylenol) which happens to remain the number one cause of acute liver failure despite how ridiculously easily accessible it is to the population.

    To counter the points-

    Taxation/Costs - I have no idea where OP pulled this info from. Any simple search on the economy of regions that have legalized has shown an exponential growth into the green (pun intended). Colorado is a perfect example since it's had the longest standing least restrictive (meaning recreationally legal on top of medically legalization) laws. Colorado essentially has so much money coming from taxation that they are having to find additional places to funnel it into because they amount coming in is larger than what was foreseen/expected. The articles reporting such funds going towards schools, benefit of homeless citizens, and such exemplify this. I believe this assertion from OP was made using the same concept applied toward alcohol as a comparable basis when, objectively, this comparison is absolutely asinine. The very second marijuana is attributed as the sole cause to a significant car accident, anti-cannabis groups will be throwing it all around the media and everything else that has viewers so based on vehicular operation after use alone, this is not comparable. As a healthcare provider, I've been a paramedic for 7 years and am completing a premedical degree and preparing for medical school and while this is absolutely anecdote and I implore you to mentally note that and its' subsequent intrinsic value to this topic, I can say I have only ran one car accident where I truly believe being stoned was a contributing factor, but I'll also say that I believe the kid was bent over reaching for a phone or something and that was also another factor. Guesstimation of about 45-55mph on a residential road (but of course, he reported he was only going 20mph) in a neighborhood, the type of situation many of us 'let our guard down' and become less observant about our driving because there isn't as much active traffic. He struck a parked vehicle, no injuries. However, I cannot count how many limp bodies I've thrown into my ambulance or black tags I've put on ejected victims during an MCI (mass casualty incident, meaning where I am one paramedic, I have one partner, maybe one crew first responding for me, and far more patients than can be treated by my available resources as I'm usually either the only or only have one other provider on scene that can perform advanced life support. The paradigm shifts and rather than trying to treat all patients, we triage and tag 'em based on injuries and presentation and begin treating who we believe we can do the most for while awaiting additional units. Green is okay, yellow is injured, red is fucked up, black is non-salvageable) caused by a drunk driver. It literally does not compare unequivocally.

    Workforce/Labor - Everything stated has fair merit in this context, but legalization does not increase these effects and as has been proven by literally everything else we've created laws against (other substances, assault/violence/murder, speeding, theft, etc), these things continue to exist despite laws just as people whom smoke marijuana are not going to stop simply because it remains illegal. These effects exist regardless of legal status, however, are also outweighed by the same concept applied to alcohol and other legal substances. Regarding substances that are legal, many employers have policies about employees not being allowed to imbibe/use within 12 hours of the start of a shift. This policy could easily include legal cannabis and that would be fair because realistically, you do not need to be stoned at work. The caveat to this is drug testing. Many places, such as where I work, also test for alcohol as well as nicotine. Frankly, again anecdote, I've smoked cigarettes, marijuana, and drank alcohol 12+ hours prior to a shift in the past and the only one I would say had any effect on my performance was the alcohol because it's the only substance that caused a lingering effect of feeling cruddy. As cannabis becomes legal on different levels in more and more states, this will cause an additional paradigm shift where employers may begin to rethink their stance on it. Private employers will ALWAYS have the right to hire despite cannabinoid metabolite presence in your urine. I actually popped positive on a test for a private transport company a few years back and the owner hired me anyways because he was not concerned with a positive result as long as I did not show up to work under the influence. He understood that if I smoked a joint or bowl 1 day before my shift, that had no bearing on my ability to render care to you or your loved one be it a basic first aid level or a cardiac arrest. OP mainly plays on saying stoners are lazy and procrastinate, but I do not believe marijuana makes you lazy unless you are, subconsciously, a lazy person. While I'm sure some will, I don't think a majority of people are going to say "I smoked pot and now I'm not going to go to work because fuck it." Jobs have this thing called pay and it's how you support yourself. If you choose to not go to work and thus, be less capable of providing for yourself, I think that's a choice and a problem with your work ethic, not whether you use cannabis or alcohol or not.

    Medical use - Actually, no, just because it has medical use it does NOT automatically mean it can be prescribed. Physicians take an oath when they become physicians and one of the main basis of it is to first, do no harm. That is not to say nothing a physician does has no potential harm or risk(s) involved, but moreso the implication of intentionally causing harm or ordering something that has potential for harm (beyond simply a medical perspective) and due to this, physicians do NOT have the capacity to prescribe schedule 1 substances as they have been designated to have no medical use or value, they can only recommended trial of it. This is essentially why rescheduling has now become a relatively hot topic, because we are having more and more studies, research, and case reports of conditions that are resistant to typical/standard treatment showing amazing positive result from use of a cannabis based product or item. Don't let hopeful potheads fool you though, many people out there are making baseless claims that are NOT actually scientifically validate. The scientific process is a long and arduous one and while we ARE collecting more and more information about how beneficial cannabis is, there is not nearly the amount of research out there that some people would lead you to believe. Absolutely nothing has been proven, by scientific standards, as of yet. It has merely significantly surpassed the scientific standard of evidence (3 separate cases with at least correlative links, indicating need for further research to validate and potentially isolate a causative li which, upon multiple repeated studies yielding same results, essentially becomes irrefutable unless/until additional research can be performed to discredit the established link and also is validate through the same process) and we are further validating what we have found, but we still have a long way to go because research standards are pretty restrictive on schedule 1 substances. The DEA recently approved the FIRST and ONLY true medical study to be perform on marijuana in it's whole, smokeable form rather than a concentrate or an extracted component (or component group) of cannabis. Do not accept what someone tells you regarding this subject unless they are offering citations and sources of valid medical studies provided directly by the organization performing these studies. There are a LOT of claims out there in articles such as this that are pro-cannabis instead of anti-cannabis that usually extrapolate their own conclusion on what they are reading, fueled by either a lack of understanding about the scientific process/medical studies, how to differentiate a legitimate medical study result publishing from a biased article or subjective interpretation being expressed. CBD is making leaps and bounds and from what has been shown, I assure you, cannabis legalization and further studying is only a matter of time. There's talk about rescheduling marijuana based on all of this and even if the government were to only lower it to a schedule 2, this would facilitate a LOT more research than is currently going on and potentially could reach a point where a physician could actually prescribe rather than writing a recommendation. However, prescription ability is a whole other monster and if it happened, is going to take QUITE a while longer before it'd hit that point.

    Enforcement - I'm starting to think OP is cognitively impaired because this paragraph of the article, to me, seems to support cannabis and not refute it. I would REALLY like to know where he is pulling his numbers from because to my knowledge, there are no statistics to marijuana-caused/attributed deaths because it is difficult to isolate marijuana as a sole cause and the majority of deaths that occur with marijuana being able to be traced back to the victim coincide with other factors that HAVE been proven and isolated as sole contributing factors to death, such as alcohol usage, chronic health problems that are not attributable to marijuana as they are typically inherited and genetic traits. I do not see how anybody could believe enforcement of regulations if legalized would do anything other than exponentially decrease compared to the costs of prosecution, imprisonment, etc, of it now as a schedule 1. Also as said by OP, in that case, marijuana would likely not be found by law enforcement outside of the investigation of another crime having been committed. Don't really have much to refute this because OP seems to have inadvertently made my point for me.

    Black Market - It's true. Even with alcohol and tobacco legal, there are plenty of people that make their own. The difference, however, is if it is illegal, the only place that you can get it is the black market where it was produced/procured with a mind to stealth. However, if you're legally selling marijuana along with everyone else with the money to start a business doing so, competition drives price down and quality up. With them being legally able to grow, they do not have to worry about getting caught and it is far more practical to focus on quality and yield of end product when you do not have to worry about a neighbor smelling your grow, an electricity usage spike signals a red flag to provider, or any of the things that would cause someone to sacrifice quality of production for the sake of stealth. Someone growing commercially is more likely to really perfect it than someone growing out of their house.

    Prohibition - I'm really starting to believe this article refutes itself as I only see someone saying what they claim is fact with nothing to support it. Prohibition of alcohol cut down use by 30-40%? Really? Exactly where did that info come from? I'm pretty sure prohibition caused citizens to develop their own way of producing an alcoholic drink when they couldn't run down to the store and by it. I'm also sure that it caused a lot of problems because the population was significantly pissed off. If that's the case, we should prohibit murder and rape because everyone would like to see those occur 30-40% less frequently. Too bad there aren't laws against those things.

    Pot/tobacco/alcohol comparison - Now I offered anecdote in a few of my points, but I hope it was established well that this was merely to try and iterate some perspective of mine and not as a validating factor of what I said. This entire paragraph on the article is pure anecdote based on what OP thinks the government should do and representing it as fact, exactly as I previously said so many people do when they really have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Going off of what OP wrote in their article, if the government truly cared for its' citizens, there would be no 'fast food' or any foods legal to sell if they didn't fit into the confines of a healthy dietary choice, sex without condoms would also be illegal, as would deforestation and a large array of things that are vital cogs in the machine we call our country/economy. Also again, grouping cannabis in with alcohol and referring to car accidents. I won't even waste anymore brain activity responding to this disgusting misuse of the English language OP calls an article.

    Don't allow someone to use their education as a validating factor. Having a PhD does not automatically mean everything you say is correct or that your basis of asserting any 'fact' is flawless. Even doctors, lawyers, etc, make mistakes and fall victim to our very human nature of free will and cognition. It actually surprises me someone that's achieved such a high level of education would make such claims and not cite sources, especially when that education pertains to methodology. Take any controversial subject and you can find PhD carrying experts on both sides of the equation. If a physician tells you 2+2=31, does that mean they are more correct than you saying "no, it's 4" because they have a much higher level of education than you?

    There are ignorant people with education all over, again, don't let someones educational history be their validating factor.

    • Like Like x 4
  16. Sure smoke is bad, but theres other ways of ingesting. And all scientific stuff aside, it can't be "good" for you. Think about it, is liq good for you? No..(well mabey in moderation).But you still get inebriated. Which is what your after when you consume cannabis. Its down to how bad is it for you compared to other substance's, alcohol included.

  17. Not in the slightest, the majority of the amazing benefit being found in cannabis is CBD based products as they have several significant benefits to assist your bodies natural physiological processes, most notably in homeostatic and bioregulatory mechanisms, hence so many cases being reported of such benefit to seizure disorders, appetite regulation, metabolism and conditions pertaining to inadequate metabolism (which affects a very long list of physiological processes) among a few other things. We are also starting to see an added benefit of increased 'protection' against degenerative disorders and typical degradation of tissues that go along with aging and maturing of your body, hence why cannabis products are now being considered for things such as Alzhiemers and Dementia, an extremely difficult disease process to watch a loved one progress through.

    To play off my previous comment, we do not have enough research to 100% validate as absolute fact, by the scientific burden of evidence and correlation has long since been far surpassed, essentially the fuel to the fire of this exact topic.

    Speaking directly of smoking, CBD is a non-psychoactive component of marijuana that is synergistic to the THC in marijuana and as such, smoking is an effective mode of ingestion. However, the DEA only recently approved/endorsed an actual study on smokeable form marijuana because with smoking specifically, there is a risk vs benefit to consider because no smoke will ever be good for you because, if nothing else, it has negative effects on your pulmonary surfactant (the substance that maintains surface tension of your alveoli, without which you would not be able to adequately diffuse oxygen into the blood and co2 out of the blood as well of the reason your lungs do not 'collapse' with the constant alternating intrathoracic pressure and related pressure gradients that occur with respirations. That does not mean that you cannot absorb beneficial components of something by smoking it, hence weighing risks vs benefit.

    So generically saying that it is not good for you is simply false, by saying it is harmless would also be false. To that effect, something as 'safe' as amoxicillin can become extremely toxic and fatal if taken too far beyond its' period of efficacy by essentially destroying your guts. Too much water, just as too much oxygen in the wrong scenario, can easily kill you. There aren't many things in this world can truly be labeled harmless.

    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum mobile app
    • Like Like x 3
  18. "... a study on marijuana was done also in Israel, the only country to really give reliable peer review to American marijuana studies."

    You're absolutely correct. The Israel study seems to be the most reliable study on this issue and it seems to be the best. You can find it on YouTube.
  19. The problem with this debate is that the lack of credible scientific evidence in either direction results in an anecdotal/emotional confrontation, becoming a vehicle for predjudice and disinformation. Inappropriate use of any substance will cause problems - the answer is education, not senseless propaganda. Perhaps those states that have benefited from the taxes imposed could be persuaded to fund some proper peer-reviewable studies to be done to clarify all these issues once and for all.

Share This Page