Why I Changed My Mind On Weed(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
Why I Changed My Mind On Weed
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/
375 comments
Interesting that you don't get high any more. I wondered whether MMJ would fall into the category of "do not drive or operate machinery" whilst using.
I believe most states have rules that are about "driving under the influence" and the influence could be alcohol, drugs, illness, or basically anything that would alter your mental state. I have had days when the pain alone would make me fail a roadside sobriety test (slurred words, can't walk a straight line). I don't recommend consuming drugs or alcohol and driving, prescription or otherwise.
At work I avoid operating the forklift, milling machine, or anything else that could cause injury to me or my people. I still get a very slight buzz, but nothing at all like when I first started using it (think 5 or 10% of previous effects). I have had times when I consumed what I needed (four or five bowls) when friends were in the same room, and they have gotten high from just being there while I had no change. In general I consume in the very early morning and at night when I know I won't be leaving again before sleep. I avoid using during the day because most days I have to drive and work.
MMJ is certainly not a perfect solution, but it beats constant never ending pain (no drugs) or addiction and liver failure (opiates with acetaminophen) http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html .
At work I avoid operating the forklift, milling machine, or anything else that could cause injury to me or my people. I still get a very slight buzz, but nothing at all like when I first started using it (think 5 or 10% of previous effects). I have had times when I consumed what I needed (four or five bowls) when friends were in the same room, and they have gotten high from just being there while I had no change. In general I consume in the very early morning and at night when I know I won't be leaving again before sleep. I avoid using during the day because most days I have to drive and work.
MMJ is certainly not a perfect solution, but it beats constant never ending pain (no drugs) or addiction and liver failure (opiates with acetaminophen) http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html .
Once your tolerance has been built up to such high levels, taking a week off (in my experience) is all you need to get a "90% reset."
Fair enough. I wonder if the active component that dulls the pain also the one that causes the wooziness. Is it possible to have one without the other? I suppose smoking the raw leaf is a pretty blunt delivery mechanism vs putting the active compounds in a patch or a pill.
>Interesting that you don't get high any more.
At 5 joints a day OP probably has built up a pretty high resistance to THC. Speak to enough every-day smokers and you'll find they go on breaks every once in a while to address this.
>I wondered whether MMJ would fall into the category of "do not drive or operate machinery" whilst using.
Depends on the strain, if you're smoking Indicas then yes you should not operate machinery.
At 5 joints a day OP probably has built up a pretty high resistance to THC. Speak to enough every-day smokers and you'll find they go on breaks every once in a while to address this.
>I wondered whether MMJ would fall into the category of "do not drive or operate machinery" whilst using.
Depends on the strain, if you're smoking Indicas then yes you should not operate machinery.
This is a really good article (despite it's admittedly biased source) on driving while under the influence of marijuana:
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scienti...
It's also important to note the most dangerous thing you can do, bar none, is to drive tired and unfocused. Which is very much legal.
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scienti...
It's also important to note the most dangerous thing you can do, bar none, is to drive tired and unfocused. Which is very much legal.
Not the most dangerous thing.
Try driving on LSD. While drunk. And high on xanax. While shooting heroin.
Obviously, there are more dangerous states to drive in than tired and unfocused...
Try driving on LSD. While drunk. And high on xanax. While shooting heroin.
Obviously, there are more dangerous states to drive in than tired and unfocused...
I would rather drive on LSD than drive tired, no question.
Can't LSD cause you to hallucinate? Hallucinations seem like the #1 thing you wouldn't want to happen to you while you are driving.
Not really in the conventional way people think of hallucinations.
What you see is distorted, but everything you see is actually there. The walls might look like they're dripping or wavy, the branches on a tree appear to reach out at you, and colors become more vibrant, but you won't ever see gigantic bunnies or flying unicorns or some other stupid shit that often ends up in film depictions of a psychedelic experience.
As dosage increases, your mind increasingly tends to interpret what you're seeing as something else, like a shadow may appear briefly to be a person. When this starts to happen I would no longer feel comfortable driving, but for me this occurs at the peak of 500 ug + experiences, the equivalent of 5 standard doses. Not saying that driving on LSD is a great idea, but on a single standard dose it's not nearly as dangerous as driving after you've pulled an all-nighter IMO.
What you see is distorted, but everything you see is actually there. The walls might look like they're dripping or wavy, the branches on a tree appear to reach out at you, and colors become more vibrant, but you won't ever see gigantic bunnies or flying unicorns or some other stupid shit that often ends up in film depictions of a psychedelic experience.
As dosage increases, your mind increasingly tends to interpret what you're seeing as something else, like a shadow may appear briefly to be a person. When this starts to happen I would no longer feel comfortable driving, but for me this occurs at the peak of 500 ug + experiences, the equivalent of 5 standard doses. Not saying that driving on LSD is a great idea, but on a single standard dose it's not nearly as dangerous as driving after you've pulled an all-nighter IMO.
You and I both know it's all about dose :)
As a human, you are more able to handle hallucinations than you think. If you see a bear off in the distance, in real life do you freak out and drive off the road? No. You just remark at it. "Holy shit a bear in the distance!"
When you're on acid, you don't change as a person, your reactions don't change. If you see something weird you say "woah, that's weird" but, unless you're deep in a trip and forget you are on a substance, you can usually handle it like a normal person.
When you're on acid, you don't change as a person, your reactions don't change. If you see something weird you say "woah, that's weird" but, unless you're deep in a trip and forget you are on a substance, you can usually handle it like a normal person.
In my experience, one dose of acid will make you see things, but not things that aren't there. More like interesting patterns in clouds. You can clearly distinguish what's real and what's not. That being said, I'd rather not drive, but could imagine doing so.
A 1998 Olympic gold medalist in snowboarding was stripped of his medal for testing positive for marijuana. Then someone at the IOC thought better of trying to call marijuana a performance enhancing drug.
Definitely would fall into the impairs motor skills category. You can develop a tolerance for almost all drugs, even alcohol and yet many still fall within that category so wouldnt expect ganja to be any different.
>You can develop a tolerance for almost all drugs
That seems to be the common wisdom, but is there any evidence that that's true?
That seems to be the common wisdom, but is there any evidence that that's true?
It does. In Washington state, where it is legal, the initiative that made it so made a provision to amend DWI laws to include THC thresholds.
You might want to look at getting one of these:
http://openvape.com/
It's very discreet and pretty effective, esp. if you are looking for a more CBD non-thc delivery method.
Unfortunately these are a local Denver product right now from what I can tell (my friend in SF can't find them their yet outside of driving to Berkley); so it might be difficult to find outside of colorado. They also make a variety of cartridges including Sativa, Indica and Hybrid.
I've switched to using this most of the time esp. outside the house, or when the kids are around. When you exhale there is hardly any smoke either and I've seen people smoking these at bars openly. I haven't been so bold even though I have a red-card, things sure have changed fast, at least in Denver.
Edit: Also, the high effect is minimal, esp with the Sativa cartridges. Much more of a body, pain reliever type effect.
Edit 2: Cartridges are rated for around 300 hits, and at 40 dollars per that works out be a pretty cost-effective solution from a cost standpoint too. This might not be as effective as a mj joint however; I would be curious to know if you get one if it's more or less effective.
It's very discreet and pretty effective, esp. if you are looking for a more CBD non-thc delivery method.
Unfortunately these are a local Denver product right now from what I can tell (my friend in SF can't find them their yet outside of driving to Berkley); so it might be difficult to find outside of colorado. They also make a variety of cartridges including Sativa, Indica and Hybrid.
I've switched to using this most of the time esp. outside the house, or when the kids are around. When you exhale there is hardly any smoke either and I've seen people smoking these at bars openly. I haven't been so bold even though I have a red-card, things sure have changed fast, at least in Denver.
Edit: Also, the high effect is minimal, esp with the Sativa cartridges. Much more of a body, pain reliever type effect.
Edit 2: Cartridges are rated for around 300 hits, and at 40 dollars per that works out be a pretty cost-effective solution from a cost standpoint too. This might not be as effective as a mj joint however; I would be curious to know if you get one if it's more or less effective.
There are lots of good, discreet vaporizers. This one is the top of the line and freely available: http://www.ploom.com/pax
I wonder: what's the relationship between marijuana 'strength' (measured in THC, I guess) and medical effectiveness?
It seems to me the studies in the posted article are from a time when marijuana was dramatically 'weaker' than what you get today.
It seems to me the studies in the posted article are from a time when marijuana was dramatically 'weaker' than what you get today.
There are 3 main active ingredients in marijuana: THC, CBD, and CBN. The places I go get their strains and edibles/topicals/whatever lab tested so you know the %s of each. In general, higher CBD+CBN levels are better for pain relief and insomnia and will cause more grogginess/drowsiness than strains higher in THC which are more for appetite stimulation, euphoria, anxiety relief, etc.
At least in SF the legitimate dispensaries do a good job of informing you about these things and finding the strains that will accomplish what you want.
At least in SF the legitimate dispensaries do a good job of informing you about these things and finding the strains that will accomplish what you want.
If I am trying to get relief for pain and insomnia, why would I begin with the assumption that I am looking for a strain of THC at all? Why not get medical advice on how to treat the pain/insomnia/underlying conditions?
People usually go to the weed doctor after they've exhausted other avenues. For one thing, if you have insurance it's going to be a lot cheaper to take standard pharma products than weed.
Because weed is safe enough to treat as an over-the-counter remedy? Because many people in this country find medical care to be inaccessible?
You are incorrect about the effects of CBD, in fact modern research has shown it's effect to be more stimulating and has been compared to ritalin by those with experience.
For more modern up to date science backed information on CBD see projectcbd.org
CBN is not a primary cannabinoid, it's a breakdown product of THC and simply indicates how old or stale the cannabis is. It's primary effect is grogginess and general unpleasantness so you want to avoid it as much as possible.
Any dispensary that says CBD is good for insomnia is simply repeating long disproven but widely spread information.
For more modern up to date science backed information on CBD see projectcbd.org
CBN is not a primary cannabinoid, it's a breakdown product of THC and simply indicates how old or stale the cannabis is. It's primary effect is grogginess and general unpleasantness so you want to avoid it as much as possible.
Any dispensary that says CBD is good for insomnia is simply repeating long disproven but widely spread information.
Look at THC / CBD proportions. There's research [0] into CBD mitigating THC's interference with memory formation.
Also, intentionally-high-CBD strains are under development [1]:
"A high-CBD cannabis strain was developed in the 1980s by David Watson and Robert Clarke, American naturalists who founded a company called Hortapharm in Amsterdam to pursue their goal of developing plant strains for different purposes. (The day Watson and Clarke became expatriates is the day the U.S. lost its lead in the field of cannabis therapeutics.) In 1998 Hortapharm sold its seed stock to a British start-up, GW Pharmaceuticals, which has since developed a strain that expresses 97% of its cannabinoid content as CBD.
GW plans to test its high-CBD strain as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, psychotic disorders, and epilepsy. It is now in Phase 2 trials to determine the dose levels to use in clinical trials involving people. GW mixes its high-CBD and high-THC strains in a 1:1 ratio to make Sativex, a plant extract formulated for spraying under the tongue that has been approved in Canada and elsewhere to treat neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis. CBD evidently bolsters the pain-killing effects of THC while moderating its psychoactivity."
[0] http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101001/full/news.2010.508.ht...
[1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/07/14/who-s-afraid-of-canna...
Also, intentionally-high-CBD strains are under development [1]:
"A high-CBD cannabis strain was developed in the 1980s by David Watson and Robert Clarke, American naturalists who founded a company called Hortapharm in Amsterdam to pursue their goal of developing plant strains for different purposes. (The day Watson and Clarke became expatriates is the day the U.S. lost its lead in the field of cannabis therapeutics.) In 1998 Hortapharm sold its seed stock to a British start-up, GW Pharmaceuticals, which has since developed a strain that expresses 97% of its cannabinoid content as CBD.
GW plans to test its high-CBD strain as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, psychotic disorders, and epilepsy. It is now in Phase 2 trials to determine the dose levels to use in clinical trials involving people. GW mixes its high-CBD and high-THC strains in a 1:1 ratio to make Sativex, a plant extract formulated for spraying under the tongue that has been approved in Canada and elsewhere to treat neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis. CBD evidently bolsters the pain-killing effects of THC while moderating its psychoactivity."
[0] http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101001/full/news.2010.508.ht...
[1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/07/14/who-s-afraid-of-canna...
From my limited understanding THC is the aspect that causes the 'high' whereas the CBD's are effective at pain relief, seizure control, and generally the medical benefit side of things. Around Denver there are a whole class of food additives and edibles that are high in CBD's because of this effect.
Have you read Mindbody Prescription by Dr. John E. Sarno?
It's the only thing that could cure my constant RSI/chronic pain after years of trying everything, and in the book he talks about fibromyalgia.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mindbody-Prescription-Healing-Body...
The idea of psychogenic disorders would have normally have sounded like esoteric BS to me, but I ended up picking up the book at the recommendation of an ex-Google coder who went through all the same things that I did. I'm glad I did; for 15$, I completely cured myself after years of trying everything else (physiotherapy, standing desk, stretching exercises, working out, various books on RSI, ergonomic chairs, keyboards, mouses, trackpads, switching hands, etc, etc), and it turns out the book takes a very scientific approach to these conditions, even if it admits that there's a lot we still don't understand about exactly how our minds work and how they can affect our bodies (it's kind of an engineering approach -- we figured out something that works, now we need to figure out why).
Highly recommended to all those of you suffering from constant back pain, neck pain, RSI, etc.
It's the only thing that could cure my constant RSI/chronic pain after years of trying everything, and in the book he talks about fibromyalgia.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mindbody-Prescription-Healing-Body...
The idea of psychogenic disorders would have normally have sounded like esoteric BS to me, but I ended up picking up the book at the recommendation of an ex-Google coder who went through all the same things that I did. I'm glad I did; for 15$, I completely cured myself after years of trying everything else (physiotherapy, standing desk, stretching exercises, working out, various books on RSI, ergonomic chairs, keyboards, mouses, trackpads, switching hands, etc, etc), and it turns out the book takes a very scientific approach to these conditions, even if it admits that there's a lot we still don't understand about exactly how our minds work and how they can affect our bodies (it's kind of an engineering approach -- we figured out something that works, now we need to figure out why).
Highly recommended to all those of you suffering from constant back pain, neck pain, RSI, etc.
I was thinking of buying that book, but he sounded like a typical wackaloon to me.
I mean, just from reading the first few lines of the Amazon review:
> Dr. John Sarno caused quite a ruckus back in 1990 when he suggested that back pain is all in the head. In his bestselling book, Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection, he claimed that backaches, slipped discs, headaches, and other chronic pains are due to suppressed anger, and that once the cause of the anger is addressed, the pain will vanish.
Slipped discs are due to suppressed anger? What the fuck? I've been having back pain for a few years now (it returns whenever I slouch), but it started directly after a gym injury... what has that got to do with suppressed anger?
> Dr. John Sarno caused quite a ruckus back in 1990 when he suggested that back pain is all in the head. In his bestselling book, Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection, he claimed that backaches, slipped discs, headaches, and other chronic pains are due to suppressed anger, and that once the cause of the anger is addressed, the pain will vanish.
Slipped discs are due to suppressed anger? What the fuck? I've been having back pain for a few years now (it returns whenever I slouch), but it started directly after a gym injury... what has that got to do with suppressed anger?
Reading this currently, with a lot of similar skepticism, mostly because of this blog post: http://aaroniba.net/articles/tmp/how-i-cured-my-rsi-pain.htm...
I avoid books like this because they are almost all "wacakaloons" like you say. But this one seems to be much better. At least the entire first half of the book is the author making the medical case for his treatment. It is well cited, based on both his clinical experience and other studies.
Sarno doesn't claim that slipped discs are caused by suppressed anger. He never says that all backaches, headaches, slipped discs, and chronic pains are due to this and stresses the importance of getting examined before judging for yourself the cause of the pain. He believes that the pain from things like a slipped disc sometimes is, though. He cites a multitude of instances where people have slipped discs and aren't in pain.
Again, I'm not finished with it and am still a bit skeptical, but I would say it's probably worth a read.
I avoid books like this because they are almost all "wacakaloons" like you say. But this one seems to be much better. At least the entire first half of the book is the author making the medical case for his treatment. It is well cited, based on both his clinical experience and other studies.
Sarno doesn't claim that slipped discs are caused by suppressed anger. He never says that all backaches, headaches, slipped discs, and chronic pains are due to this and stresses the importance of getting examined before judging for yourself the cause of the pain. He believes that the pain from things like a slipped disc sometimes is, though. He cites a multitude of instances where people have slipped discs and aren't in pain.
Again, I'm not finished with it and am still a bit skeptical, but I would say it's probably worth a read.
I read his book (http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Back-Pain-Mind-Body-Connection...) expecting to have a similar reaction. While he doesn't make the strongest scientific case, you are not doing his proposition justice. It's more about people who injure themselves maintaining unconscious tension in areas which leads to stiffness and pain well after the physiological healing has finished, because they fear re-injury.
I found some of his advice helpful insofar as it suggests that mindfulness meditation can help ease tension-induced back pain (which I have found to be true for me) and that there is a mental component in overcoming the fear of re-injury and allowing yourself to resume your full range of motion without subconsciously tensing up.
As someone who struggles with anxiety from time to time, I can even believe his statement that he's referred some patients to therapy before attempting to treat their back pain.
I found some of his advice helpful insofar as it suggests that mindfulness meditation can help ease tension-induced back pain (which I have found to be true for me) and that there is a mental component in overcoming the fear of re-injury and allowing yourself to resume your full range of motion without subconsciously tensing up.
As someone who struggles with anxiety from time to time, I can even believe his statement that he's referred some patients to therapy before attempting to treat their back pain.
Invest a couple hours in reading a few chapters of the book and find out for yourself. I can't possibly summarize it all here without skipping important steps.
All your objections are addressed very well in the book. It's not like he hasn't thought about those things and how it sounds at first. He came to his conclusions empirically by treating his patients, not by dreaming up some theory out of the ether.
I'll just re-iterate my recommendation for the book. It doesn't cost much and you can always get it from the library if you really don't want to spend the money.
All your objections are addressed very well in the book. It's not like he hasn't thought about those things and how it sounds at first. He came to his conclusions empirically by treating his patients, not by dreaming up some theory out of the ether.
I'll just re-iterate my recommendation for the book. It doesn't cost much and you can always get it from the library if you really don't want to spend the money.
I don't think he claims that, but rather that slipped discs being painful is.
Not really sure about this (I haven't read that particular book), but I will say that Sarno's theories cured my RSI pain, which crippled me for over a year. I'm not sure if his explanations of the mechanism for the pain are correct (they seem very hard to test), but I'm pretty sure the pain was all psychosomatic.
Not really sure about this (I haven't read that particular book), but I will say that Sarno's theories cured my RSI pain, which crippled me for over a year. I'm not sure if his explanations of the mechanism for the pain are correct (they seem very hard to test), but I'm pretty sure the pain was all psychosomatic.
I was in Chiropractic School and dropped out because I
felt most patients got better by the placebo effect.
I once heard a Doctor describe psychosomatic pain. He believed the artierioles constricted with psychological stress. It's still real pain, but it will eventually go away.
I was deeply effected by nagging pain throughout my twenties. I went to Doctors, but since I knew where all the cranial nerves were(Chiro student), they didn't think it was psychological.
The American way to success(what ever that is) is Stressful. Especially, if you were the hard working type. Don't think you are invincible. The mind does break.
My use of weed has not worked. I used it for anxiety/depression but, it just made me feel anxious, and amplified any pain I had. But, everyone is different--try it--it just might work.
I once heard a Doctor describe psychosomatic pain. He believed the artierioles constricted with psychological stress. It's still real pain, but it will eventually go away.
I was deeply effected by nagging pain throughout my twenties. I went to Doctors, but since I knew where all the cranial nerves were(Chiro student), they didn't think it was psychological.
The American way to success(what ever that is) is Stressful. Especially, if you were the hard working type. Don't think you are invincible. The mind does break.
My use of weed has not worked. I used it for anxiety/depression but, it just made me feel anxious, and amplified any pain I had. But, everyone is different--try it--it just might work.
[deleted]
It is time to grow your own weed, on a $100/week script, my man.
I have a friend who grows and unless you are re-selling it to shops, you're unlikely to break even growing your own. The equipment is relatively costly and the care and attention required to consistently grow is very time consuming.
The start-up cost is high, yes. Around 1200 for a good set-up shopping at the right places. This includes a tent, ballist, surge protectors, light, soil, nutrients, ect. The whole 9 yards.
The first few (maybe 2-3) grows will turn out pretty bad, but it will still be enough to last you to the next grow. You have to find a balance in the nutrients and water which only really comes with trial and error, but the recommended dose is generally pretty close.
On the time issue: Once everything is set up, it's surprising relatively low time commitment. Especially if you're only growing 2-3 plants for personal use, you're looking at _maybe_ 3 hours per week for maintenance just to water every 3-4 days, prune dead leaves, sweep the area up, ect. I've also known people who use an Arduino or RaPi to rig a drip irrigation system which they can leave unattended for up to 2-weeks with no issues. Those growing for dispensaries in mass quantities are growing hundreds of plants at a time all at different stages and that is certainly a full-time job to maintain.
The nice thing about growing your own is there's no obligation to grow right after you finish one, and keeping the buds frozen preserves them completely for months until you need it. So, if you aren't looking at giving it up in the next 2 years I think its an extremely viable option which will save you money in the long run.
If you tell me how many grams you consume weekly or monthly I could give you a pretty good idea of where to start and how many plants you'd need to maintain that.
Source: I live in Colorado, grew my own in college with my roommate for 4 years, and have several friends still maintaining large and small operations I occasionally help out with.
The first few (maybe 2-3) grows will turn out pretty bad, but it will still be enough to last you to the next grow. You have to find a balance in the nutrients and water which only really comes with trial and error, but the recommended dose is generally pretty close.
On the time issue: Once everything is set up, it's surprising relatively low time commitment. Especially if you're only growing 2-3 plants for personal use, you're looking at _maybe_ 3 hours per week for maintenance just to water every 3-4 days, prune dead leaves, sweep the area up, ect. I've also known people who use an Arduino or RaPi to rig a drip irrigation system which they can leave unattended for up to 2-weeks with no issues. Those growing for dispensaries in mass quantities are growing hundreds of plants at a time all at different stages and that is certainly a full-time job to maintain.
The nice thing about growing your own is there's no obligation to grow right after you finish one, and keeping the buds frozen preserves them completely for months until you need it. So, if you aren't looking at giving it up in the next 2 years I think its an extremely viable option which will save you money in the long run.
If you tell me how many grams you consume weekly or monthly I could give you a pretty good idea of where to start and how many plants you'd need to maintain that.
Source: I live in Colorado, grew my own in college with my roommate for 4 years, and have several friends still maintaining large and small operations I occasionally help out with.
>I've also known people who use an Arduino or RaPi to rig a drip irrigation system which they can leave unattended for up to 2-weeks with no issues.
I'm interested in hearing more about this, purely for scientific reasons of course!
I'm interested in hearing more about this, purely for scientific reasons of course!
Yes, if you grow indoors you are spending a lot on electricity , but if you grow outdoors during the summer then the cost will be significantly lower. Grow enough to last through the winter. Weed grows in afghanistan in the harshest of climates.
It's called Weed for a reason. However, the stuff you get from a dispensary will have a significantly higher THC count than the stuff you grow in your backyard during the summer.
Arguable. Probably depends on experience. The farmers that grow in the green triangle california mostly grow outdoors and they supply dispensaries.
And they're professionals with the correct seeds, equipment, and climate.
Yeah, you are right. My friend grows indoors, I am sure this is part of the reason I hear of his difficulty, among other things, he keeps a busy full time job and had no previous experience growing anything before diving in to it all.
If you live in a city, you really have no choice but to grow inside.
You touch on another way in which drug laws are positively evil - the only reason why Vicodin causes liver damage is because it is legally required to contain a large amount of acetaminophen. The express purpose of the acetaminophen is to permanently damage your liver if you are ever tempted to 'abuse' the Vicodin and exceed the approved dosage.
Of course, with opioid tolerance there is no clear line between therapeutic and recreational dosages, and no way of setting an acetaminophen level that hurts one group of users but not the other, so in practice we have legally mandated poisoning of thousands of chronic pain sufferers.
Of course, with opioid tolerance there is no clear line between therapeutic and recreational dosages, and no way of setting an acetaminophen level that hurts one group of users but not the other, so in practice we have legally mandated poisoning of thousands of chronic pain sufferers.
Do you have any citations for this? I'm genuinely interested.
I'm glad that Gupta has made this public apology. It takes a lot of courage to make that statement especially for someone with great public influence.
I'm just curious as to why it took him this long. Medical marijuana has been prescribed in hospitals for some time with great benefit. I mean, just from a clinical standpoint, he should've seen the great upsides and limited downsides to using the drug. Patients, typically the elderly, with cachexia from cancer are often given marijuana to stimulate their appetite, and it works. Given its possible links with the development of Schizophrenia and the rest of its relatively mild side-effects, a quick and simple benefits/costs analysis should show that in many cases, its efficacy far outweighs the potential risks.
A huge percentage of physicians today, as indicated in the article, would be supportive of a move to legalize it. And it has been this way for several years. I just do not understand why it took Gupta so many years, having to go to the ends of the earth to dig up research from various countries to come to that conclusion.
My suspicion is that his initial viewpoint was more rooted in irrational bias and ignorance than in scientific evidence proving the drug's inefficacy. You can tell that by his mentioning of his children and how he wouldn't let them try marijuana, which is both irrelevant to the issue and an ignorant emotionally-charged argument commonly used when the topic of legalization (for medical use) is brought up. It's effectively "but remember the children!" The same could've been said for legalization of opioids and a myriad of other medications that have much more severe side-effects. And that really saddens me, because I've got great respect for the guy. I'm glad he's on what I believe to be the right side, but as someone with great influence in this country, with such an accomplished background, I feel he could've arrived to this conclusion much earlier, with much less data, and pushed for its medical legalization when the conversation was happening.
All in all welcome aboard, Dr. Gupta. Please be a little more forward-thinking from here on out.
I'm just curious as to why it took him this long. Medical marijuana has been prescribed in hospitals for some time with great benefit. I mean, just from a clinical standpoint, he should've seen the great upsides and limited downsides to using the drug. Patients, typically the elderly, with cachexia from cancer are often given marijuana to stimulate their appetite, and it works. Given its possible links with the development of Schizophrenia and the rest of its relatively mild side-effects, a quick and simple benefits/costs analysis should show that in many cases, its efficacy far outweighs the potential risks.
A huge percentage of physicians today, as indicated in the article, would be supportive of a move to legalize it. And it has been this way for several years. I just do not understand why it took Gupta so many years, having to go to the ends of the earth to dig up research from various countries to come to that conclusion.
My suspicion is that his initial viewpoint was more rooted in irrational bias and ignorance than in scientific evidence proving the drug's inefficacy. You can tell that by his mentioning of his children and how he wouldn't let them try marijuana, which is both irrelevant to the issue and an ignorant emotionally-charged argument commonly used when the topic of legalization (for medical use) is brought up. It's effectively "but remember the children!" The same could've been said for legalization of opioids and a myriad of other medications that have much more severe side-effects. And that really saddens me, because I've got great respect for the guy. I'm glad he's on what I believe to be the right side, but as someone with great influence in this country, with such an accomplished background, I feel he could've arrived to this conclusion much earlier, with much less data, and pushed for its medical legalization when the conversation was happening.
All in all welcome aboard, Dr. Gupta. Please be a little more forward-thinking from here on out.
> I'm just curious as to why it took him this long.
He's a media-savvy guy who was considered for surgeon general and has a career appearing on mainstream TV, including Oprah and Larry King Live. Someone like that can't afford to be too far ahead of the curve. I'd say this about-face means the marijuana legalization debate is ready to go national.
He's a media-savvy guy who was considered for surgeon general and has a career appearing on mainstream TV, including Oprah and Larry King Live. Someone like that can't afford to be too far ahead of the curve. I'd say this about-face means the marijuana legalization debate is ready to go national.
Or donning my tin foil hat, Monsanto is preparing the PR for its GM Cannabis
You don't have to put on a tin foil hat, as soon as marijuana is federally legal, Monsanto, Philip Morris, Camel cigarettes will be all ready to grow their own.
It's kind of obvious that these folks have the farm land, distribution networks, and a lack of morals (not that MJ is immoral, but it would require a huge about-face), so they could just as easily do weed as tobacco. Replant fields and create some new packaging and you're ready to go.
It's kind of obvious that these folks have the farm land, distribution networks, and a lack of morals (not that MJ is immoral, but it would require a huge about-face), so they could just as easily do weed as tobacco. Replant fields and create some new packaging and you're ready to go.
There is a tremendous, and key, difference in the amount of processing required for tobacco vs MJ. Tobacco has to be heavily cured and processed (not necessarily with chemicals, but certainly with lots of other methods) to be usable. It's not something that any old joe would want to do themselves due to how labor intensive it is. Plus, tobacco is a super finicky plant.
MJ, once dried, can be used with zero processing. If you consider drying to be processing, then yes, its a one step process. Not saying that these folks wouldn't make plenty of money off of the convenience factor, but the barrier to entry for MJ wholesaling is much lower due to the reduced processing.
MJ, once dried, can be used with zero processing. If you consider drying to be processing, then yes, its a one step process. Not saying that these folks wouldn't make plenty of money off of the convenience factor, but the barrier to entry for MJ wholesaling is much lower due to the reduced processing.
For what it's worth, there is relatively recent research showing that marijuana can be harmful to brains as they're still developing ([1] is the first one I remember reading), so his recommendation that his kids avoid it until they're older is probably sound. That being said, yes, I'm glad there's a higher profile scientist speaking out in favor of marijuana legalization, or at least more even-handed research of it.
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201208...
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201208...
But legalizing it for recreational and medicinal use are two completely different issues. This piece is about how he didn't believe in the therapeutic efficacy of marijuana as medical treatment and weighed too heavily the research outlining its side-effects. This is not about letting kids and adults smoke bowls and bowls of weed on their leisure time.
I'm not sure it isn't. His argument in favor of legalization is centered around the medical benefits, but that doesn't mean he believes it should be blocked for other uses.
But let's also be honest: The only reason most average people care about the issue of medical marijuana is because of their feelings attached to the recreational use of marijuana.
I think most people, whether they like marijuana recreationally or not, are outraged that the federal government can prosecute a patient that is suffering from excruciating pain for using marijuana for relief. I find this application of the law immoral in the strongest terms and any DEA agent that executes this law morally culpable in its negative effects.
Yeah, it's not like people care about a (mostly) harmless illicit drug - specially when compared to a poisonous licit drug as alcohol - is illegal based on factors of which none are scientific.
I mean, why not make things illegal just for the hell of it, right? It's not like there's a whole industry benefiting from people going to jail.
I mean, why not make things illegal just for the hell of it, right? It's not like there's a whole industry benefiting from people going to jail.
I'd actually argue that he was referring to recreational use when he was discussing his kids smoking it, based off this quote:
"Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed."
I'm assuming he's not referring to them medically smoking marijuana because he talks about a more appropriate age to start, implying that they'd be smoking it voluntarily rather than under necessity from chronic pain.
"Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed."
I'm assuming he's not referring to them medically smoking marijuana because he talks about a more appropriate age to start, implying that they'd be smoking it voluntarily rather than under necessity from chronic pain.
Long term longitudinal studies like the one referenced are inconclusive when taken in isolation. They really only work in relation to other studies, tracking already known traits. This study most likely indicates a correlation one or more other unknown traits in the individual and can in no way be taken to indicate what it claims in that article.
[deleted]
Being a bit pedantic here, I'd just like to point out that development of schizophrenia is not a mild side effect. With higher THC% strains, we have no idea the extent of latent mental disorders we're stimulating.
Maybe my wording was confusing. I didn't mean to say Schizophrenia is a mild side-effect by any means. Rather, the most dangerous side-effect we know of is a possible link to the development of Schizophrenia, and other than that, the remaining side-effects are rather mild. In a 65yr old patient with advanced-stage cancer, development of Schizophrenia just is not high up on the list of concerns.
As a person who had a roommate whose schizophrenia was likely induced by heavy marijuana use (along with his tripping on multiple bottles of Robitussin), the fact of the matter is that the harm done to this small percentage of people is vastly outweighed by the damage done to people who can't get access to it for their medical needs. And that's ignoring the huge harm caused by prosecuting recreational users due to an absurdly ineffective prohibition policy.
The higher % strains, by the way, are a direct result of prohibition. If a drug dealer is caught with an ounce of high grade that sells for 400, vs. an ounce of low grade that sells for 100, he gets the same penalty. Take a wild guess which one brings more reward for the risk. And this, my friend, is why you have higher THC %.
The higher % strains, by the way, are a direct result of prohibition. If a drug dealer is caught with an ounce of high grade that sells for 400, vs. an ounce of low grade that sells for 100, he gets the same penalty. Take a wild guess which one brings more reward for the risk. And this, my friend, is why you have higher THC %.
Sorry about your roommate but that is anectdata.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900
All that this study shows is that the amount of psychosis and schizophrenia in the population stayed constant. This doesn't in and of itself disprove a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, it just disproves the prior hypothesis that a greater percentage of people would develop it.
Right, during a period in which pot use increased.
Sure, but it's entirely possible the schizophrenia-prone population did not alter their pot usage. Also, if there's a link to the amount consumed, the number of individuals smoking pot at all could have increased while the number of individuals smoking enough pot to trigger psychosis and schizophrenia stayed constant. Wider consumption of alcohol doesn't necessarily correlate with more alcoholism.
Yeah, but this population prone to schizophrenia would have: a) to know they're predisposed to this condition; b) to know that weed would worsen it; c) to believe that this effect on schizophrenia would be bad enough to outweigh smoking a joint. Or have another factor linked to schizophrenia that makes them avoid weed. It's possible, in principle, but I think you're stretching it too far.
And it's assumed the distribution of smoking per capita didn't change by much. I think that's a good assumption; again, it's possible that what you suggested happened, but it's a bit sketchy.
And it's assumed the distribution of smoking per capita didn't change by much. I think that's a good assumption; again, it's possible that what you suggested happened, but it's a bit sketchy.
Oh, I meant the opposite, that if being schizophrenia-prone made you cannabis-prone (self-medication, effectively), that more people overall smoking pot might not mean that more schizophrenia-prone people were smoking pot, because that population would already be saturated.
I'm not saying that my hypotheses are correct, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to be scientific about whether cannabis induces schizophrenia we need to avoid jumping to conclusions.
I'm not saying that my hypotheses are correct, I'm just pointing out that if we're going to be scientific about whether cannabis induces schizophrenia we need to avoid jumping to conclusions.
you're kind of truther'ing on statistics.
The problem is that there are two simultaneous arguments happening.
The first is whether cannabis should be legalized and available as a business opportunity. You'll find very few people here to disagree with about this; there's a practically universal belief that cannabis should be legalized.
The second is whether cannabis is benign. There is a valid discussion to be had about how safe cannabis is. Having it does not imply that anyone thinks cannabis should be outlawed. Trans-fats, tobacco, and sugar are also not benign, and few people jump to the conclusion that critics of those substances are pushing for their prohibition.
The first is whether cannabis should be legalized and available as a business opportunity. You'll find very few people here to disagree with about this; there's a practically universal belief that cannabis should be legalized.
The second is whether cannabis is benign. There is a valid discussion to be had about how safe cannabis is. Having it does not imply that anyone thinks cannabis should be outlawed. Trans-fats, tobacco, and sugar are also not benign, and few people jump to the conclusion that critics of those substances are pushing for their prohibition.
You could add the practice of american football and boxing to your list...
BTW,
Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Tobacco fits this definition.
BTW,
Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Tobacco fits this definition.
I think a big reason these arguments get tied up together is that people who want to legalize recreational usage have seized upon medicinal usage as a convenient wedge to open the legalization debate.
But if we are talking about medicine, then there are much higher levels of scrutiny on topics like side effects, interactions, dosage control, quality control, etc.
I really wish the debates were better separated. I think the legalizers have harmed their cause by exposing it to FDA levels of critical scrutiny, and I think the medicinal uses are tainted by association with a bunch of long hair hippies who just want to get high. (Hyperboly intentional.)
But if we are talking about medicine, then there are much higher levels of scrutiny on topics like side effects, interactions, dosage control, quality control, etc.
I really wish the debates were better separated. I think the legalizers have harmed their cause by exposing it to FDA levels of critical scrutiny, and I think the medicinal uses are tainted by association with a bunch of long hair hippies who just want to get high. (Hyperboly intentional.)
Well stated, most accept that it should be legalized, based on the essentially economic argument of Milton Friedman and others.
Given that, its health effect is still important, as it impacts how much it should be taxed, how we allow it to be advertised and sold, and whether we should treat vaporization differently (as, all evidence shows that vaporization is healthier than smoking).
Given that, its health effect is still important, as it impacts how much it should be taxed, how we allow it to be advertised and sold, and whether we should treat vaporization differently (as, all evidence shows that vaporization is healthier than smoking).
Very well stated, this is essentially what I'm getting at. I'm all for legalization/decriminalization, but there are serious issues with chronic marijuana use that need to be addressed.
Here's the question as far as I am concerned.. are the medical risks associated with chronic use of marijuana greater than, or less than other less than universally beneficial and completely legal substances (tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, hfcs, etc)?
I'm not a pot head, and for that matter, I only have a drink a handful of times a year.. that said, I don't think that marijuana should be illegal for recreational use, let alone medical use.
I'm not a pot head, and for that matter, I only have a drink a handful of times a year.. that said, I don't think that marijuana should be illegal for recreational use, let alone medical use.
At present, it should be obvious to anyone that the greatest harm that marijuana causes, by a long shot, is found in the gov't response to those who use, make, and traffic it.
The U.S. made >6,000,000 arrests in 2011 [1] for the possession or sale of marijuana. Many of those arrested were incapacitated for an extended period of time (in custody), and had their life permanently changed for the worse. Even if 10,000 people a year get schizophrenia from heavy marijuana use, to try to mitigate this by ruining the lives of millions more is the height of absurdity.
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...
The U.S. made >6,000,000 arrests in 2011 [1] for the possession or sale of marijuana. Many of those arrested were incapacitated for an extended period of time (in custody), and had their life permanently changed for the worse. Even if 10,000 people a year get schizophrenia from heavy marijuana use, to try to mitigate this by ruining the lives of millions more is the height of absurdity.
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...
Why do you assume the schizophrenia was "likely induced by heavy marijuana use"?
Sorry, why are you convinced that the problem is marijuana and not the Robitussin? Robitussin's active ingredient is dextromethorphan, an NMDA receptor antagonist that can destroy your NMDA system through repeated usage, which is a leading hypothesis for the cause of schizophrenia.[0]
You could compare what you're saying to "my friend smokes weed and tobacco and got esophageal cancer, but I'm pretty sure it's the weed."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamate_hypothesis_of_schizo...
You could compare what you're saying to "my friend smokes weed and tobacco and got esophageal cancer, but I'm pretty sure it's the weed."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamate_hypothesis_of_schizo...
Actually, (as I told his parents) I think his use of DXM in both Robitussin and powdered form was a big contributor to his schizophrenia. I'm pro-leglization of marijuana for both recreational and medicinal use, FYI, but I think the science is still ongoing as to whether it can aggravate latent schizophrenia in people.
I'm certainly not claiming that I KNOW what caused his schizophrenia. The point I was making was that I know how bad schizophrenia can be from experience, but I still think it should be legalized due to the huge harm of prohibition.
I'm certainly not claiming that I KNOW what caused his schizophrenia. The point I was making was that I know how bad schizophrenia can be from experience, but I still think it should be legalized due to the huge harm of prohibition.
It's not clear whether the schizophrenia induced is stimulated or just aggravated—i.e., was the person already a schizophrenic with a high threshold for psychosis that the weed lowered? I don't think we'll know for a long time.
to add to that, its also highly likely (no pun intended) that someone who is schizophrenic would be aware something is not right and try to self medicate...
From what I'm aware, Schizophrenia develops in the mid 20s—it's entirely possible someone could become a regular user before realizing they were schizophrenic. And (as I mentioned below) I've witnessed a weed-induced psychotic episode. I think it's highly unlikely someone would wish to continue after experiencing that.
Actually, I suspect that pre-schizophrenic people might use marijuana not for self-medication, because they think something is wrong, but rather because early onset schizophrenia may intensify the pleasurable effects of marijuana.
You can't "already have" schizophrenia without having the symptoms of schizophrenia (assuming you aren't on medication that completely controls the symptoms). The reason is that schizophrenia and almost all other mental illnesses are diagnosed on the basis of behavior. The current thinking is that there's a genetic predisposition, and then certain environmental factors like child abuse (linked to mental illness in general) and exposure to hallucinogens will increase the chance of the condition developing.
Psychosis is not required for a definition of Schizophrenia, or at least, it wasn't in the late 90s when we looked at it in the DSM. The most frequent symptom of Schizophrenia at the time was 'hearing voices', and that struck 69% of diagnoses. Have a look at the DSM-IV criteria.
And certainly, it's possible to have a lighter form of schizophrenia that is worsened by whatever factor.
And certainly, it's possible to have a lighter form of schizophrenia that is worsened by whatever factor.
Auditory hallucinations indicate psychosis; psychosis itself is not a symptom but a catch-all state of mind that refers to many different symptoms, including auditory hallucinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Criteria
Agreed that schizophrenia could be aggravated by pot; I was just disputing that you could "have" schizophrenia without having ever presented any of the symptoms. I may have incorrectly inferred this claim from the original post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Criteria
Agreed that schizophrenia could be aggravated by pot; I was just disputing that you could "have" schizophrenia without having ever presented any of the symptoms. I may have incorrectly inferred this claim from the original post.
> You can't "already have" schizophrenia without having the symptoms of schizophrenia (assuming you aren't on medication that completely controls the symptoms).
Yes you can, you can be genetically predisposed before the symptoms appear.
Yes you can, you can be genetically predisposed before the symptoms appear.
a) I used the words "genetic predisposition" in my reply; b) just because you are genetically predisposed to having breast cancer doesn't mean you have or will have breast cancer.
Straight out of the misinformation arsenal of the anti drug crowd; in fact there is no evidence that the strongest modern strains are any stronger than the strongest strains available in the 60's.
That's not true. 40+ years of breeding plus advancements in botany and horticulture have yielded us some incredibly powerful strains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Concentration_of_psyc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Concentration_of_psyc...
In fact it is true, people have been concentrating thc for millenia, there is nothing out there stronger today than there has been for thousands of years:
http://www.briancbennett.com/history/excerpts/thc-content.ht...
http://www.briancbennett.com/history/excerpts/thc-content.ht...
With my friends, neuroscience doctors are still "on the fence" with marijuana. It hasn't been tested enough, blah blah.
I stopped using a long while back, it did not agree with me.
Should it be illegal? No, plenty of people are OK with it.
I stopped using a long while back, it did not agree with me.
Should it be illegal? No, plenty of people are OK with it.
Are you sure. I've read several studies that shows marijuana has a habit of revealing or causing schizophrenia in youth, with almost no incidence in adults.
I wouldn't let my kids smoke marijuana the same as any substance that might cause maldevelopment.
I wouldn't let my kids smoke marijuana the same as any substance that might cause maldevelopment.
What do you mean by when the conversation was happening? I think it's still happening, and on the verge of a breakthrough point for legalization. Or do you mean when opinion was more against legalization, he could have helped speed it up?
One of the biggest issues with marijuana in this country is the lack of research behind it. Here in Michigan where over 60% of the people voted for medical marijuana, they just outlawed medibles. Meaning no pot brownies for patients. Which makes no sense when applying medical marijuana.
Caregivers and patients are outraged because they feel like they know more than the judges or politician do, and I have to agree.
On another more general note about marijuana, I think most peoples perception of the drug is that out of a hollywood movie. In my own experience you can use marijuana to lose weight, as opposed to inducing the munchies, but generally people don't know that or expect it.
Medical marijuana is legal in more states than gay marriage and growing in all 50+ Canada and Mexico. I am so tired of the US lagging behind the rest of the world and not listening to the people.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol, and its time we treated it that way -quote from pulled commercial that was going to play of Nascar event..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A
Edit-- Additionally, here in Michigan we have real doctors that refuse to sign marijuana recommendation forms for fear of their contracts with hospitals and insurance agencies. Meanwhile we have doctors from states close and far recommending patients come to medical states to get marijuana. This leads to dingy doctors signing medical forms for patients they have little interaction with, which makes the law seem abused.
Caregivers and patients are outraged because they feel like they know more than the judges or politician do, and I have to agree.
On another more general note about marijuana, I think most peoples perception of the drug is that out of a hollywood movie. In my own experience you can use marijuana to lose weight, as opposed to inducing the munchies, but generally people don't know that or expect it.
Medical marijuana is legal in more states than gay marriage and growing in all 50+ Canada and Mexico. I am so tired of the US lagging behind the rest of the world and not listening to the people.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol, and its time we treated it that way -quote from pulled commercial that was going to play of Nascar event..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A
Edit-- Additionally, here in Michigan we have real doctors that refuse to sign marijuana recommendation forms for fear of their contracts with hospitals and insurance agencies. Meanwhile we have doctors from states close and far recommending patients come to medical states to get marijuana. This leads to dingy doctors signing medical forms for patients they have little interaction with, which makes the law seem abused.
It seems clearly safer in some respects, and I agree with you on the policy implications, but I think the apples-oranges safety comparison that gets made between MJ and (alcohol, tobacco) is misleading and a little dangerous. MJ is not purely benign. There's some evidence that it reacts very badly with a small subset of the population. That's obviously true of alcohol too, and if you want to argue that it's "as safe as alcohol" I'll concede the point (while retaining my nerdy irkedness over the imprecision of the statement).
Food coloring also reacts very badly with a small subset of the population, but we aren't banning M&M's
The blue ones were banned for a while, but that was because they give you super-powers.
edit: Sorry, it was the red ones that were "banned" for a short time. The public was frightened of red dye, even though according to Mars, they did not use the red dye that was suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M&M's#Color_changes_summarized...
edit: Sorry, it was the red ones that were "banned" for a short time. The public was frightened of red dye, even though according to Mars, they did not use the red dye that was suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M&M's#Color_changes_summarized...
HFCS reacts badly with the majority of the population, inducing adiposis. So does MSG. Don't forget about the pesticides you chow down on with every meal, or the chloride in your water, or the phthalates in your soda, or the BPA in your nalgene, or...
The US is terrible for substance safety. Dire. Awful. Hell, on the note of colouring, you still use bloody anthracine red, which has been banned for decades in the rest of the planet, as its carcinogenic.
The US is terrible for substance safety. Dire. Awful. Hell, on the note of colouring, you still use bloody anthracine red, which has been banned for decades in the rest of the planet, as its carcinogenic.
MSG reacts badly with the majority of the population? Source?
It's unlikely they'll find a good one. (For the thread): The initial studies on "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" seem to have conflated overconsumption of sodium with MSG. MSG has the misfortune of being known primarily by an acronym, which makes it sound scarier than it actually is (ie, not remotely scary).
Yeah, that's why I asked. As far as I know, the idea that MSG is somehow bad for you is entirely an urban legend. But, as always, I could be wrong.
I might be wrong about MSG. IIRC animals produce the D- entantiomer (MSG is chiral), and industrially produced stuff is D- and L-, and apparently L- can be harmful.
The studies that rebutted the MSG connection in Chinese Restaurant Syndrome used industrial products, like Ajinomoto MSG.
So, I was a little unclear: I offered two arguments against the CRS/MSG connection: first, that MSG is a scary-sounding name for a chemical that plays a central role in our metabolism and nervous system; second, that studies have attempted to isolate MSG as a cause of CRS and failed to find a link.
So, I was a little unclear: I offered two arguments against the CRS/MSG connection: first, that MSG is a scary-sounding name for a chemical that plays a central role in our metabolism and nervous system; second, that studies have attempted to isolate MSG as a cause of CRS and failed to find a link.
I'll go one further--it's clearly safer (in all respects) than either alcohol or tobacco.
My only fear with legalization is that it will get pulled from the grassroots production into industrial methods, and that in turn will lower its safety (as was the case, for example, with cigarettes and the additives in the paper for them).
My only fear with legalization is that it will get pulled from the grassroots production into industrial methods, and that in turn will lower its safety (as was the case, for example, with cigarettes and the additives in the paper for them).
The biggest safety problem with MJ is (as the original article hinted) the tendency in some people (especially teenagers) to increase the probability of them developing psychosis. This is why it is so apples to oranges. Yes, there are carcinogenic problems as well but the main problem is the increased risk of psychosis.
I'd be more concerned about its interaction with anxiety disorders, which are very common and underdiagnosed.
I'd throw in a LOT of anecdata for this one.
For agitating full blown psychosis, few things are better than the array of legal highs. Where MJ (alone) has negatively effected the people I've known, it's always been down to some anxiety disorder.
If I were to start armchair theorising, I'd say it is because of cannabis' effect on the "linguistic center" of the brain. Couple this with nicotine - similar effect to cocaine in that it reduces the activity of neurotransmitter depletion enzymes - and you have serious potential for wild ideas that could interact with underlying issues to create disturbing problems. From the reclusive shut in, to the raging paranoiac, I've seen it all and I've often thought that the prevailing notion that the drug is benign is downright wrong. It is a drug. A very powerful drug. One to be respected and used wisely, and left the hell alone if it doesn't 'work' for you. But I agree wholeheartedly that it should not be criminalised.
If I were to start armchair theorising, I'd say it is because of cannabis' effect on the "linguistic center" of the brain. Couple this with nicotine - similar effect to cocaine in that it reduces the activity of neurotransmitter depletion enzymes - and you have serious potential for wild ideas that could interact with underlying issues to create disturbing problems. From the reclusive shut in, to the raging paranoiac, I've seen it all and I've often thought that the prevailing notion that the drug is benign is downright wrong. It is a drug. A very powerful drug. One to be respected and used wisely, and left the hell alone if it doesn't 'work' for you. But I agree wholeheartedly that it should not be criminalised.
To reply to the comment below also.
The substance of the cannabis-schizophrenia claims is largely based on Nordic research (given the extensive surveys carried out as part of Armed Forces programs). Typically (or at least in the study I have read), the association is based on around 10 cases in 10,000. Note that these are only the people who tested positive in their bloodstream, not those who (sensibly) stopped taking drugs a few weeks before joining the army.
After controlling for various factors, they found a significant association between marijuana use and later diagnosis of schizophrenia. I believe they used linear regression, rather than something more appropriate like survival analysis.
The interaction with anxiety disorders I am much less familiar with, can you provide some links (preferably to the original papers, even if they're paywalled)?
The substance of the cannabis-schizophrenia claims is largely based on Nordic research (given the extensive surveys carried out as part of Armed Forces programs). Typically (or at least in the study I have read), the association is based on around 10 cases in 10,000. Note that these are only the people who tested positive in their bloodstream, not those who (sensibly) stopped taking drugs a few weeks before joining the army.
After controlling for various factors, they found a significant association between marijuana use and later diagnosis of schizophrenia. I believe they used linear regression, rather than something more appropriate like survival analysis.
The interaction with anxiety disorders I am much less familiar with, can you provide some links (preferably to the original papers, even if they're paywalled)?
Schizophrenia is another one that can become exacerbated by marijuana use.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but can you link the relevant studies?
We've had over half a century of malicious and premeditated disinformation on the topic of drugs--especially marijuana--and so forgive me if I'm skeptical of a claim which does reek somewhat of "think of the children!".
We've had over half a century of malicious and premeditated disinformation on the topic of drugs--especially marijuana--and so forgive me if I'm skeptical of a claim which does reek somewhat of "think of the children!".
Just the first few results from Google Scholar.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856709...
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/3/216.short
http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395607...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856709...
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/3/216.short
http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395607...
None of those demonstrate causality, just that cannabis use is associated with, or predicts depression / psychosis. Is cannabis use causal? If so, how does cannabis cause psychosis? Or, are depressed kids more likely to try drugs? Some psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists opine that some people's drug use is the person's attempt at self-medication.
Causality is a notoriously hard thing to prove. I challenge you to find a study or two that demonstrate a similar relationship proving causality beyond any doubt.
Working in psychiatry research myself, I definitely don't trust a single study out there that claims to have found a simple relationship between such incredibly complex things as moods, bioactive substances, person's environment, genetics, etc (same goes for nutritional science, environmental science, economics, and so on).
To me much more compelling evidence are anecdotal cases from my personal life. I know people who have smoked all the time since their teenage years and who lead happy lives, but I have also seen how people can get really messed up from pot and how it goes away when they stop (although occasional episodes and mood swings can persist long after stopping). Other huge factors no one seems to talk much about are interactions between everyday stress and smoking, between coffee consumption and smoking, alcohol and smoking. The list goes on forever.
Working in psychiatry research myself, I definitely don't trust a single study out there that claims to have found a simple relationship between such incredibly complex things as moods, bioactive substances, person's environment, genetics, etc (same goes for nutritional science, environmental science, economics, and so on).
To me much more compelling evidence are anecdotal cases from my personal life. I know people who have smoked all the time since their teenage years and who lead happy lives, but I have also seen how people can get really messed up from pot and how it goes away when they stop (although occasional episodes and mood swings can persist long after stopping). Other huge factors no one seems to talk much about are interactions between everyday stress and smoking, between coffee consumption and smoking, alcohol and smoking. The list goes on forever.
>Causality is a notoriously hard thing to prove.
That doesn't make it okay to invoke Chewbacca. The authors made the strongest argument they could. Some take that and bolster it as if it were concrete proof. If they really want to strengthen the connection, show some studies that reject the self-medication hypothesis.
>I have also seen how people can get really messed up from pot and how it goes away when they stop (although occasional episodes and mood swings can persist long after stopping).
People sometimes get really messed up without any drugs at all. As far as personal anecdotes go, I know more people who are recreational cannabis users whose lives are just fine than I do users whose lives are in turmoil. Of the recreational users I know who have suffered due to their drug use, the suffering can often be attributed or related to some punitive drugs policy.
That doesn't make it okay to invoke Chewbacca. The authors made the strongest argument they could. Some take that and bolster it as if it were concrete proof. If they really want to strengthen the connection, show some studies that reject the self-medication hypothesis.
>I have also seen how people can get really messed up from pot and how it goes away when they stop (although occasional episodes and mood swings can persist long after stopping).
People sometimes get really messed up without any drugs at all. As far as personal anecdotes go, I know more people who are recreational cannabis users whose lives are just fine than I do users whose lives are in turmoil. Of the recreational users I know who have suffered due to their drug use, the suffering can often be attributed or related to some punitive drugs policy.
I share the same fear about legalization: Phillip Morris will swoop in and start mass-producing packs of joints or find crafty ways to put small grow-ops out of business.
I think the "medical" route is the best way to go. Yes, it is a bit of hassle to go and get a green card, but I hope it will help slow the corporate industrialization of marijuana.
Furthermore, I think that marijuana's proper position in society should be that of a medicine, not as a general intoxicant.
I think the "medical" route is the best way to go. Yes, it is a bit of hassle to go and get a green card, but I hope it will help slow the corporate industrialization of marijuana.
Furthermore, I think that marijuana's proper position in society should be that of a medicine, not as a general intoxicant.
It would be the same as the beer industry. There will be a couple Budweiser type brands that are mass produced, mass marketed, cheap, and consumed by 90% of the population. Then there will be craft brands that produce high quality small quantity products at high prices for the connoisseurs. There will also be hobbyists that want to produce their own.
Bring on full legalization, regulation and taxation. It is overdue.
Bring on full legalization, regulation and taxation. It is overdue.
Bring on full legalization, regulation and taxation. It is overdue.
Again, that's the trick here. Legalization and regulation could still end up banning production at home or anywhere but crazy high-grade pharma labs and greenhouses--especially if, for example, you are now suddenly on the hook for tax stamps or whatnot.
Be careful what you wish for.
Again, that's the trick here. Legalization and regulation could still end up banning production at home or anywhere but crazy high-grade pharma labs and greenhouses--especially if, for example, you are now suddenly on the hook for tax stamps or whatnot.
Be careful what you wish for.
Shellfish, tree nuts, pumpkin, soy, and lots of other things very clearly react very badly -- indeed, fatally -- with a small subset of the population.
To the extent that we let this affect policy at all, its not to ban the products, its to make sure that (1) they are clearly identified when present in a composite product, (2) we very narrowly (usually as a matter of policy of particular facilities, which may be public policy to the extent that those are public facilities) restrict their use in circumstances where there is particularly high risk that extremely sensitive people might be subject to dangerous passive exposure.
To the extent that we let this affect policy at all, its not to ban the products, its to make sure that (1) they are clearly identified when present in a composite product, (2) we very narrowly (usually as a matter of policy of particular facilities, which may be public policy to the extent that those are public facilities) restrict their use in circumstances where there is particularly high risk that extremely sensitive people might be subject to dangerous passive exposure.
Sure! I think I just wrote poorly in the previous comment. I definitely think we shouldn't have cannabis prohibition.
I just don't think it necessarily follows that cannabis is safer in all situations than alcohol or tobacco. Legal or not, it's still not OK with me if my kids are using it.
I just don't think it necessarily follows that cannabis is safer in all situations than alcohol or tobacco. Legal or not, it's still not OK with me if my kids are using it.
I just don't think it necessarily follows that XXXXX is safer in all situations than alcohol or tobacco. Legal or not, I don't want my kids using it.
EDIT: Also, I presumably wouldn't want anyone under 18 to use it, same as alcohol and tobacco (basically, considering college, the drinking age is 18).
EDIT: Also, I presumably wouldn't want anyone under 18 to use it, same as alcohol and tobacco (basically, considering college, the drinking age is 18).
I lost 70lbs smoking pot. Health is better than it has been in years. Munchies go both ways, you just have to learn to "flip the switch".
I'm a filthy criminal.
I'm a filthy criminal.
Can you expand on that thought? How do you "flip the switch"?
Well. Two things. I ate largely due to anxiety. Weed makes me not anxious. Therefore I ate less.
Secondly, you can decide to morph that "hungry" feeling into a "full" feeling. Not quite sure how to put it, but you can convince yourself - a bit like when you're holding an ice cube, and convince yourself that it's heat you can feel.
Secondly, you can decide to morph that "hungry" feeling into a "full" feeling. Not quite sure how to put it, but you can convince yourself - a bit like when you're holding an ice cube, and convince yourself that it's heat you can feel.
For reasonable comparison: I know a guy who lost ~25 lbs when he QUIT smoking pot. So, this stuff is really complex. MJ is not a panacea.
Actually, it may be the closest thing to a panacea yet in medicine considering its potential to impact: pain management, obesity, diabetes, cancer treatment, psychiatry. I'm not aware of any other drug with such potentially wide-ranging applications, especially considering its risk of patient harm.
"I am so tired of the US lagging behind the rest of the world"
Can you give a list of countries that are "ahead" of the US in regards to marijuana decriminalization?
Lets see, there is North Korea, the Netherlands, and Uraguagy might decriminalize this year.
I am so tired of the "the US lagging behind the rest of the world" trope. It's the same thing with same sex marriage. The US has been and is ahead of curve when it come to sex marriage rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png
Can you give a list of countries that are "ahead" of the US in regards to marijuana decriminalization?
Lets see, there is North Korea, the Netherlands, and Uraguagy might decriminalize this year.
I am so tired of the "the US lagging behind the rest of the world" trope. It's the same thing with same sex marriage. The US has been and is ahead of curve when it come to sex marriage rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png
The fact you leave off Portugal indicates you don't really know what you're talking about. The US is often behind the curve. I have no idea what 'sex marriage rights' are but DOMA is pretty much not going to prove your point.
DOMA was just ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court.
Even if we put Portugal in the "legalized" category (which the source I cited does not), that puts the list 3, possibly 4 when Uruguay passes their law.
Even if we put Portugal in the "legalized" category (which the source I cited does not), that puts the list 3, possibly 4 when Uruguay passes their law.
The US is not lagging behind. When it comes to marijuana liberalisation, it is definitely leading the way. With the exception of Netherlands, attitudes to marijuana is pretty strict in Europe. The US has the most pot smokers/capita by a long shot.
Also, Hollywood movies seem to portray it as some cool party drug, that hippies and pseudo-intellectuals use. The drug is present in most American Pie-style movies, many sitcoms and animated series like Family Guy.
Personally I believe marijuana going mainstream is an engineered phenomena. Hollywood is able to create perceptions and demands where none was before. Older generations weren't miserable all the time because they couldn't smoke pot. New generations found out about it by the marketing.
Also, Hollywood movies seem to portray it as some cool party drug, that hippies and pseudo-intellectuals use. The drug is present in most American Pie-style movies, many sitcoms and animated series like Family Guy.
Personally I believe marijuana going mainstream is an engineered phenomena. Hollywood is able to create perceptions and demands where none was before. Older generations weren't miserable all the time because they couldn't smoke pot. New generations found out about it by the marketing.
I don't necessarily disagree with your post but you should be careful with generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence. "The US has the most pot smokers/capita by a long shot" sounds a lot like some assumption you just made up based on your own personal experience. A study like marijuana users per capita is inherently difficult because people don't like admitting that they partake in illegal activity. The only statistic to go on for that study is how many people were arrested for marijuana crimes, which only shows how many people were caught breaking a law, not how many people use.
Also I think your marijuana/drug law knowledge is a little behind. There are a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere who are changing to more relaxed drug policies similar to the progress in the US (including Portugal who effectively decriminalized all drugs in 2001).
Also I think your marijuana/drug law knowledge is a little behind. There are a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere who are changing to more relaxed drug policies similar to the progress in the US (including Portugal who effectively decriminalized all drugs in 2001).
The "how many arrested" statistic is completely useless because the level to which marijuana possession results in arrest varies wildly between countries and even states or cities. Equally the frequency of searches, the criteria for selecting people to search all vary wildly.
Anecdotally, marijuana usage was much more prevalent amongst students I knew when I lived in Canada than it is in the UK. My experience (admittedly while travelling through) in the US was similar to Canada. This drug-use map[1] corroborates that (US 14%, Canada 12%, UK ~7%), although I do agree that any survey about drug use will probably not see completely truthful answers.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/ju...
Anecdotally, marijuana usage was much more prevalent amongst students I knew when I lived in Canada than it is in the UK. My experience (admittedly while travelling through) in the US was similar to Canada. This drug-use map[1] corroborates that (US 14%, Canada 12%, UK ~7%), although I do agree that any survey about drug use will probably not see completely truthful answers.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/ju...
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country.
Laws may be more lax in Europe but popular opinion of the drug is much more negative than in the US. But attitudes are changing largely due to how it is portrayed by Hollywood.
Laws may be more lax in Europe but popular opinion of the drug is much more negative than in the US. But attitudes are changing largely due to how it is portrayed by Hollywood.
Portugal is also ahead of us - they have decriminalized all drugs. Their attitude towards drug abuse is that it needs to be treated instead of punished. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
What an insightful idea - HELP people instead of just locking them up in timeout only to release them back into the public with the same (or worse) problems that they started with.
Older generations could, in fact, smoke whatever the hell they wanted: large-scale criminalization of cannabis started in the 1960s in the US. In Europe, even heroin was legal during most of the XIX century!
Better late than never I guess, but what changed his mind really? "I actually did more research and was shocked, shocked by what I found!" or "I'm making a documentary and the tides of public opinion continue to shift, writing's on the wall, time to change my tune..."
Maybe (probably) I'm being overly cynical, but people like him have lent support and legitimacy to a machine that literally destroys people's lives for their involvement with a fairly innocuous plant. Oops!
Maybe (probably) I'm being overly cynical, but people like him have lent support and legitimacy to a machine that literally destroys people's lives for their involvement with a fairly innocuous plant. Oops!
He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I'm sure that editorial decision was commercial and not public-spirited, but still.
Yes, you are being overly cynical. My guess is that you agree with virtually everything in the article, and, instead of being pleased that someone has not only come around to your position in the most public fashion possible, but also apologized for previously disagreeing with you, you manage to be unhappy about the prominence of the piece.
The impression you leave is that you'd be happier if he slunk off to hide somewhere like a petulant bridge troll. That might be more satisfying for you, but it's an outcome that serves the public poorly.
Yes, you are being overly cynical. My guess is that you agree with virtually everything in the article, and, instead of being pleased that someone has not only come around to your position in the most public fashion possible, but also apologized for previously disagreeing with you, you manage to be unhappy about the prominence of the piece.
The impression you leave is that you'd be happier if he slunk off to hide somewhere like a petulant bridge troll. That might be more satisfying for you, but it's an outcome that serves the public poorly.
Being pleased about a new opinion and being cynical about its motivations are not mutually exclusive.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.
Hardly! He doesn't have to slink off anywhere, nor do I think he should.
But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out. Speaking personally, I hold a special disdain in my heart for smart people that perpetuate the war on drugs for various reasons and then profess to stand for individual freedom.
In particular, the argument of not enough research, keep it illegal is the most insidious kind of argument because it sounds reasonable enough but inherently contains the opinion that we should keep jailing people until this research materializes. So yeah, when I get a chance to rub it in with someone like that, I take it. I guess that's petty, but so is jailing people for getting high.
But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out. Speaking personally, I hold a special disdain in my heart for smart people that perpetuate the war on drugs for various reasons and then profess to stand for individual freedom.
In particular, the argument of not enough research, keep it illegal is the most insidious kind of argument because it sounds reasonable enough but inherently contains the opinion that we should keep jailing people until this research materializes. So yeah, when I get a chance to rub it in with someone like that, I take it. I guess that's petty, but so is jailing people for getting high.
Yeah I agree with you. It is utterly implausible that he was not previously aware of every last thing he mentioned in the article. There's just no way. Oops, I ignored all of this evidence and all the worldwide recommendations of doctors prescribing it to patience this whole time?
No, of course not. He knew full well - probably on his initial pass of the data a decade ago or whatever if he's at all competent - of all the things he "discovered" in this article.
He merely sacrificed the health and comfort all of those people who could have benefited until now, in order to further his career.
No, of course not. He knew full well - probably on his initial pass of the data a decade ago or whatever if he's at all competent - of all the things he "discovered" in this article.
He merely sacrificed the health and comfort all of those people who could have benefited until now, in order to further his career.
>He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece.
I felt a strong impression that he had written this article for the same reason as he wrote the exact opposite 4 years ago, i.e. self-serving commercial interest.
I felt a strong impression that he had written this article for the same reason as he wrote the exact opposite 4 years ago, i.e. self-serving commercial interest.
It would be refreshing if Gupta had said "I finally opened my eyes to the truth that was in front of me all along' as opposed to an opener for an expose 'shocked at what I found...', as if there was a hidden conspiracy against the plant. all in a day's work, and a book to follow I presume. overall I like the Doc and am hopeful his revelation will enable others to do likewise.
It shouldn't be pleasing when someone comes around to your position merely because it's advantageous for them at the moment. For one thing, it means you can't count on them, and their position will change again the next time the winds shift.
Maybe (to be even more cynical) he has come to the conclusion that the regime of marijuana prohibition is coming to an end (or at least losing public support); and as a TV doctor who needs make headlines and wants to maintain relevance in the future, he has finally taken a critical look at US drug policy and discovered that it was based mostly on sham evidence. It is commendable that he apologizes and admits that he based his previous opinion on that sham.
This Howard Samuels (a person who makes his living off of a drug rehabilitation clinic) guy is an immoral shit who appears to believe that peoples' real medical needs are secondary to his opposition of "people just getting loaded". He is a prohibitionist. I am so tired of this ridiculous and harmful policy.
This Howard Samuels (a person who makes his living off of a drug rehabilitation clinic) guy is an immoral shit who appears to believe that peoples' real medical needs are secondary to his opposition of "people just getting loaded". He is a prohibitionist. I am so tired of this ridiculous and harmful policy.
Actually the Howard Samuels seemed pretty rational, was all for using marijuana as medicine, and even stated its less harmful than alcohol. He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high, and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use, rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically.
Maybe he is rational, but the way he was yelling and carrying on did not help him in my assessment of him. I also note his financial interest in maintaining drug prohibition, which he disclosed. I don't know why he kept carrying on about recreational users, because Gupta merely came out in support of research into medical use.
>He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high,
I may be overly skeptical but I got the impression that he felt most medical marijuana users are just recreational users, and he meant for us to think that was a fact, but offered no evidence to support that notion as a fact.
>and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use,
Well, it is probably true that many people who support medical use of marijuana also support something on the spectrum of decriminalization:legalization. You can include me in that, I support both politically.
> rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically.
Despite the fact that I support legalization, I do have a deep-seeded and personal concern for those who need it medically. As a teenager, I got to watch a close relative who I was very fond of die (in agony) of cancer. It is my personal belief that those in hospice who suffer from pain or are unable to eat, or whose care is complicated by the use of opiates should be denied no drug if it might improve their life/death.
As for lesser ailments than agonizingly painful terminal cancer, it appears IMO that marijuana is less harmful than almost everything, and potentially has a wide potential range of medical applications, and therefore it is immoral (and idiocy) to deny its use to people.
>He just was pretty clear on the fact that most of the users of marijuana are in it for the high,
I may be overly skeptical but I got the impression that he felt most medical marijuana users are just recreational users, and he meant for us to think that was a fact, but offered no evidence to support that notion as a fact.
>and that politically medical marijuana is more of a stepping stone for folks interested in recreational use,
Well, it is probably true that many people who support medical use of marijuana also support something on the spectrum of decriminalization:legalization. You can include me in that, I support both politically.
> rather than a deep seeded concern for those who need it medically.
Despite the fact that I support legalization, I do have a deep-seeded and personal concern for those who need it medically. As a teenager, I got to watch a close relative who I was very fond of die (in agony) of cancer. It is my personal belief that those in hospice who suffer from pain or are unable to eat, or whose care is complicated by the use of opiates should be denied no drug if it might improve their life/death.
As for lesser ailments than agonizingly painful terminal cancer, it appears IMO that marijuana is less harmful than almost everything, and potentially has a wide potential range of medical applications, and therefore it is immoral (and idiocy) to deny its use to people.
You are entirely correct. When I used to smoke, medical marijuana was essentially viewed by me as the thin edge of the wedge.
That being said, that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence for it. But, as with most things, we tend to believe the evidence that fits our preconceptions (and argue with the evidence that doesn't).
That being said, that doesn't mean there isn't good evidence for it. But, as with most things, we tend to believe the evidence that fits our preconceptions (and argue with the evidence that doesn't).
Your not being cynical at all, its pretty much right on the money. Its pretty cut and dry either:
LAST TIME, he didnt really look at the evidence and was just regurgitating the standard line without really doing scientific analysis
OR
THIS TIME, this time he is just trying to jump on the bandwagon and get out in front of this controversal topic...
either way he doesn't hold to much weight with me, i am all for smoking ganja but the whole medical marijuana being pushed by recreational smokers thing is kinda perturbing to me
LAST TIME, he didnt really look at the evidence and was just regurgitating the standard line without really doing scientific analysis
OR
THIS TIME, this time he is just trying to jump on the bandwagon and get out in front of this controversal topic...
either way he doesn't hold to much weight with me, i am all for smoking ganja but the whole medical marijuana being pushed by recreational smokers thing is kinda perturbing to me
After I saw Gupta in Japan talking about protection against gamma radiation (http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative-while-t...) I stopped listening to him at all.
He's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiological safety; therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?
That seems like a surprisingly dumb argument for you, John, but maybe I just misunderstood it.
At any rate, the importance of the piece isn't Gupta's authority on the subject. After all, vis a vis cannabis, Gupta is best known for his former opposition to legalization, which is a self-evidently dumb position for him to have taken.
The importance of the piece is that Gupta was Obama's first nominee for Surgeon General, and the best known medical reporter in the country; he's doing a very public about-face on the issue just as the US appears to be reaching a tipping point on legalization.
Also: it's just a good piece, or at least an atypically good one for CNN. That's why I posted it.
That seems like a surprisingly dumb argument for you, John, but maybe I just misunderstood it.
At any rate, the importance of the piece isn't Gupta's authority on the subject. After all, vis a vis cannabis, Gupta is best known for his former opposition to legalization, which is a self-evidently dumb position for him to have taken.
The importance of the piece is that Gupta was Obama's first nominee for Surgeon General, and the best known medical reporter in the country; he's doing a very public about-face on the issue just as the US appears to be reaching a tipping point on legalization.
Also: it's just a good piece, or at least an atypically good one for CNN. That's why I posted it.
> but, like half of HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiological safety
I think you're being awfully generous to HN...
But seriously, the key takeaway from articles like this one is that marijuana acceptance is finally becoming mainstream; five or ten years ago this kind of article would have been considered quite controversial for a major news organization like CNN, and may have been quashed at the editorial level.
Thankfully, it's only a matter of time before it's legalized and we can empty our jails of people who should never have been there in the first place for possession. The sooner the better.
I think you're being awfully generous to HN...
But seriously, the key takeaway from articles like this one is that marijuana acceptance is finally becoming mainstream; five or ten years ago this kind of article would have been considered quite controversial for a major news organization like CNN, and may have been quashed at the editorial level.
Thankfully, it's only a matter of time before it's legalized and we can empty our jails of people who should never have been there in the first place for possession. The sooner the better.
I agree this is the major takeaway of the article.
Interesting to think that what is "mainstream" can be observed in what print-media outlet editors are brave (or un-scared) enough to publish. As you said, I imagine this would have been a pretty controversial article 10 years ago. Now, it feels almost like a me-too opinion piece from Sanjay Gupta, which is a big enough name on a trending topic for a CNN editor to call it news.
Interesting to think that what is "mainstream" can be observed in what print-media outlet editors are brave (or un-scared) enough to publish. As you said, I imagine this would have been a pretty controversial article 10 years ago. Now, it feels almost like a me-too opinion piece from Sanjay Gupta, which is a big enough name on a trending topic for a CNN editor to call it news.
People who don't know when to say "I don't know" get their 'ignore' flag set by me as well. If he's a genius in field X then makes ludicrous comments about field Y I might set his ignore flag as well. Maybe it's just one of my pet peeves as an engineer, but I really can't stand it when people aren't comfortable saying 'I don't know'. I consider it a character flaw.
If your job is to talk about stuff on TV, then you do the best with what you've got.
I've written Perl code. Really, really bad Perl code. I would've loved to throw my hands up and say "let someone who knows their shit do this" but I was the only person, and the job needed to be done.
You have to understand that for media personalities, offering their opinions... that's their work output. You can shut up and still keep earning a paycheck. Their job is to keep talking.
Essentially what you're advocating is to have TV channels just broadcast dead air most of the time. Maybe that's what you want. But it's not really a reasonable suggestion. I guess we can have a laugh about it though.
I've written Perl code. Really, really bad Perl code. I would've loved to throw my hands up and say "let someone who knows their shit do this" but I was the only person, and the job needed to be done.
You have to understand that for media personalities, offering their opinions... that's their work output. You can shut up and still keep earning a paycheck. Their job is to keep talking.
Essentially what you're advocating is to have TV channels just broadcast dead air most of the time. Maybe that's what you want. But it's not really a reasonable suggestion. I guess we can have a laugh about it though.
I think the problem is much more clear from just reading the article.
Gupta admits throughout that in the past, his decisions were based on incorrect information and assumptions. He seems to have a penchant for deciding "I'm against this!, here is the evidence that supports my point". Whereas now he finally seems to be coming around to the idea that maybe, just maybe, other evidence beside the evidence that supports his point should be considered. Perhaps he could even...gasp...put himself in someone else's shoes before making judgements based only on his own experience.
It's getting a little old hearing the "well I finally considered this from someone else's point of view and realized my viewpoint was insane" why does this take us so long?
Gupta admits throughout that in the past, his decisions were based on incorrect information and assumptions. He seems to have a penchant for deciding "I'm against this!, here is the evidence that supports my point". Whereas now he finally seems to be coming around to the idea that maybe, just maybe, other evidence beside the evidence that supports his point should be considered. Perhaps he could even...gasp...put himself in someone else's shoes before making judgements based only on his own experience.
It's getting a little old hearing the "well I finally considered this from someone else's point of view and realized my viewpoint was insane" why does this take us so long?
Ok I'm ignorant on the subject. I watched the CNN video but the page just says read Wikipedia. Gupta says the suits are to protect you from gamma radiation (maybe not those exact words). Is that not an accurate way to describe the purpose to their target audience? From what I understand, there are radioactive particles everywhere near the reactor and you don't want these in or on your body, because they are emitting high levels of radiation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't it be great if you were only allowed to use your honorifics when talking about things you actually had a doctorate in.
He's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiologic safety; therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?
I guess. I guess you are right. I probably should listen to his opinion about this. I just have a hard time with media personalities who are willing to spout crap when they don't know what they are talking about instead of simply shutting up.
I guess. I guess you are right. I probably should listen to his opinion about this. I just have a hard time with media personalities who are willing to spout crap when they don't know what they are talking about instead of simply shutting up.
I'm not saying it's a good thing the guy was CNN's subject matter expert on camera for radiation safety, just that he's got a legit claim to subject matter expertise regarding pharmacology. CNN is still awful.
What are his pharmacology credentials?
Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i looked at the facts before i really didn't but this time i did!". Makes me take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt.
Does seem clear indication that the american mainstream is getting acceptance for the idea of medical ganja though.
Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i looked at the facts before i really didn't but this time i did!". Makes me take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt.
Does seem clear indication that the american mainstream is getting acceptance for the idea of medical ganja though.
I'm going to go with his license to prescribe drugs and his neurosurgery practice on that one.
The license to prescribe drugs is largely useless as an indicator of pharmacological expertise. We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country (Edit: I was mistaken; we don't). The government has no idea what it's doing in its process for deciding who gets that power. I have encountered plenty of doctors who clearly had no idea what they were doing when it came to pharmacology, to the point of prescribing drugs together with dangerous interactions and not informing the patient of the risk.
As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella of "medicine"?
Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems incredibly shaky here.
As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella of "medicine"?
Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems incredibly shaky here.
We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country.
What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors that have received "advance practice" training.
In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to heal itself.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors that have received "advance practice" training.
In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to heal itself.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure that chiropractors are a source for both marijuana and steroid (for body building) scripts. I want to say this is in California.
Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.
Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.
I have to take issue again with what you have said.
You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_...
Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and D.O. is virtually indistinguishable.
To quote the American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-...
Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO?
A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a physician.
Please do more research before you continue to spread additional misinformation. Thank you.
I have to take issue again with what you have said.
You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_...
Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and D.O. is virtually indistinguishable.
To quote the American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-...
Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO?
A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a physician.
Please do more research before you continue to spread additional misinformation. Thank you.
>You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science)
No, osteopathy is not completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is absolute pseudoscience. Please do your research.
Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.
No, osteopathy is not completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is absolute pseudoscience. Please do your research.
Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.
If you are outside the U.S. then I understand your belief that osteopathy is quackery because outside the U.S., it is. Inside the U.S. though a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.
You would know this if you bothered to read either of the citations I provided. You and the person downvoting me apparently disagree with the American Medical Association that says a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.
For failing to read my citations before you replied to them and for providing no citations of your own other than "every experience I have had with a DO." you are currently in the category of Ignorant Fool. If you would like to provide a citation or two for what you say and perhaps if you actually respond to my citations instead of around them I might be able to upgrade you to Misguided Goof.
EDIT: Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are just as suspicious of medical doctors. I have no further desire to discuss this with you.
You would know this if you bothered to read either of the citations I provided. You and the person downvoting me apparently disagree with the American Medical Association that says a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.
For failing to read my citations before you replied to them and for providing no citations of your own other than "every experience I have had with a DO." you are currently in the category of Ignorant Fool. If you would like to provide a citation or two for what you say and perhaps if you actually respond to my citations instead of around them I might be able to upgrade you to Misguided Goof.
EDIT: Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are just as suspicious of medical doctors. I have no further desire to discuss this with you.
And some MDs were educated at Georgetown, which is a Jesuit school, so you can't trust any Georgetown grads because they believe in sky faires.
Let's also remember that "MDs" work in a field founded by bloodletters who believed in the four humors.
The important thing is whether the field is progressing via scientific method, not what its founded believed long ago.
Let's also remember that "MDs" work in a field founded by bloodletters who believed in the four humors.
The important thing is whether the field is progressing via scientific method, not what its founded believed long ago.
> We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb.
D.O's have an education that AFAIK is equivalent to that of an M.D. Why should they not be allowed to prescribe medication?
D.O's have an education that AFAIK is equivalent to that of an M.D. Why should they not be allowed to prescribe medication?
Because their training also includes the scientifically bankrupt "osteopathic manipulative medicine", presented as if it were real medicine.
If you found out that your doctor had, in addition to her ordinary training, received training in psychic healing, and believed that this was a valid approach to medicine, how comfortable would you feel with that doctor being allowed to prescribe potentially dangerous medications to patients?
If you found out that your doctor had, in addition to her ordinary training, received training in psychic healing, and believed that this was a valid approach to medicine, how comfortable would you feel with that doctor being allowed to prescribe potentially dangerous medications to patients?
Because their training also includes the scientifically bankrupt "osteopathic manipulative medicine
I'm sorry and I don't say this lightly but you should really just shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_manipulative_medic...
In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 1999, researchers concluded that osteopathic manipulative medicine and traditional drug therapy resulted in equivalent resolution of lower back pain in a nearly identical time frame. The difference was that participants receiving osteopathic manipulative medicine required less pharmaceutical intervention. The advantage of osteopathic manipulative medicine was a diminution of adverse drug reactions while the disadvantage was the greater amount of physician time required for each patient.[22]
A 2005 meta-analysis and systematic review of six randomized controlled trials of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) that involved blinded assessments of lower back pain in ambulatory settings concluded that OMT significantly reduces low back pain, and that the level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months.[23]
The National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine states[24] that overall, studies have shown that spinal manipulation can provide mild to moderate relief from low-back pain and appears to be as effective as conventional medical treatments.
You are the worst kind of debater. You say something wrong, are called out on it, then you change the entire topic. Only you're wrong about that new topic too, so you cling to it to death. So now you're in the position of arguing against the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Health, the New England Journal of Medicine and frankly thousands of studies.
You are a colossal fool.
I'm sorry and I don't say this lightly but you should really just shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_manipulative_medic...
In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 1999, researchers concluded that osteopathic manipulative medicine and traditional drug therapy resulted in equivalent resolution of lower back pain in a nearly identical time frame. The difference was that participants receiving osteopathic manipulative medicine required less pharmaceutical intervention. The advantage of osteopathic manipulative medicine was a diminution of adverse drug reactions while the disadvantage was the greater amount of physician time required for each patient.[22]
A 2005 meta-analysis and systematic review of six randomized controlled trials of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) that involved blinded assessments of lower back pain in ambulatory settings concluded that OMT significantly reduces low back pain, and that the level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months.[23]
The National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine states[24] that overall, studies have shown that spinal manipulation can provide mild to moderate relief from low-back pain and appears to be as effective as conventional medical treatments.
You are the worst kind of debater. You say something wrong, are called out on it, then you change the entire topic. Only you're wrong about that new topic too, so you cling to it to death. So now you're in the position of arguing against the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Health, the New England Journal of Medicine and frankly thousands of studies.
You are a colossal fool.
Osteopaths are doctors. They aren't chiropractors.
See my other responses. In summary, DOs are fully trained doctors who also believe that a completely pseudoscientific methodology (OMM) is valid medicine. I have very little confidence in such a person's ability to critically weigh evidence, and it seems crazy to me to let them give people drugs.
DOs are fully trained doctors that happen to have gone to medical schools affiliated with osteopathy. A previous commenter related osteopathy to Catholicism via Georgetown; that sounds about right. People choose medical schools for a variety of reasons (cost, admissions, locations). One of the practitioners at my primary care doctor's office is a DO, and does not believe in pseudoscience.
I think what happened here is that you overreached; you claimed that chiropractors could prescribe drugs, were corrected, and then scrambled to recover your argument instead of just admitting you were wrong. Now we're in a totally pointless and, from what I can tell, one-sided discussion about the legitimacy of DOs, despite the total irrelevance of osteopathy to the thread we're on.
I think what happened here is that you overreached; you claimed that chiropractors could prescribe drugs, were corrected, and then scrambled to recover your argument instead of just admitting you were wrong. Now we're in a totally pointless and, from what I can tell, one-sided discussion about the legitimacy of DOs, despite the total irrelevance of osteopathy to the thread we're on.
To be fair, the one DO I know is a DO rather than an MD because he couldn't get into a normal medical school (schools of osteopathy are not as selective in general).
Though I suppose that also may not be something you'd want to know about your doctor. But as far as I know the academic rigor of his medical program was no less than that of any MD school, minus the inclusion of osteopathy itself. I wouldn't have any issues going to him as a primary care doctor.
Though I suppose that also may not be something you'd want to know about your doctor. But as far as I know the academic rigor of his medical program was no less than that of any MD school, minus the inclusion of osteopathy itself. I wouldn't have any issues going to him as a primary care doctor.
This isn't a debate I think is worth having. I'm just saying that there's practically no reason to believe Gupta was an appropriate choice for CNN as an expert in radiological hazards, but there is some reason to believe he should know what he's talking about re medicine.
That's fine. I just feel like there's a dangerous overtrust of doctors among intelligent and educated people, and I hate to see comments that encourage that.
If you're scientifically illiterate and generally uneducated, trusting doctors is a very good idea. If you have the cognitive tools to check their work, though, it is very smart to do so.
If you're scientifically illiterate and generally uneducated, trusting doctors is a very good idea. If you have the cognitive tools to check their work, though, it is very smart to do so.
Fair, but a little knowledge really can be a dangerous thing. I'm not a practicing physician, but several members of my family are (whose characters I tend to trust).
The annoyance you may feel when a non-engineer pontificates on a technical topic they clearly only have a surface level understanding of is similar to the aggravation they (M.D's) feel when patients who have perused pubmed and webmd decide they're better informed than they actually are.
I'm of the opinion that "trust, but verify" is a reasonable way to approach subject matter experts in other fields.
The annoyance you may feel when a non-engineer pontificates on a technical topic they clearly only have a surface level understanding of is similar to the aggravation they (M.D's) feel when patients who have perused pubmed and webmd decide they're better informed than they actually are.
I'm of the opinion that "trust, but verify" is a reasonable way to approach subject matter experts in other fields.
Sure, but unfortunately, most doctors don't seem to be able to distinguish the patient who's been reading alt med forums and maybe skimming some cherry-picked articles (perusing would actually be the correct thing to do with a study), from the patient who is scientifically literate and has a reasonable knowledge of pharmacology and the evidence regarding their own condition.
When your doctor is giving you opiates and not even trying to find a sustainable alternative, and you do a ton of research, find an alternative drug (with few side effects and no recognized potential for abuse) that has been shown to help people with similar conditions, and send that study to the doctor, only to have him say "Well, I've never heard of that drug being used for this, so no", it is... frustrating.
When your doctor is giving you opiates and not even trying to find a sustainable alternative, and you do a ton of research, find an alternative drug (with few side effects and no recognized potential for abuse) that has been shown to help people with similar conditions, and send that study to the doctor, only to have him say "Well, I've never heard of that drug being used for this, so no", it is... frustrating.
actually thats not frustrating, thats what doctors are supposed to do in general
There is also the article, wherein he describes four pages worth of research he did, and in medical school they teach you a good bit about how to read scientific papers, because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?).
So, unless he's intentionally and maliciously lying (unlikely), he presents plenty of good and valuable information, and as a media correspondent is probably better than most at conveying that to people.
So, unless he's intentionally and maliciously lying (unlikely), he presents plenty of good and valuable information, and as a media correspondent is probably better than most at conveying that to people.
>because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?).
Ideally, that's how it would work. In practice, it appears that in many cases, doctors do little research beyond what pharmaceutical reps tell them[1].
This seems to have a lot to do with time constraints. Doctors report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading medical journals, and they only read the full text of about a third of the articles they read[2]. On average, the FDA approves about three new drugs each month. If new drugs were all a doctor needed to read about, 6 hours for each one might be enough to get a decent idea of safety and efficacy. But of course, that's not all a doctor needs to read up on.
But of course that has no bearing on whether doctors know how to read scientific papers.
[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/
Ideally, that's how it would work. In practice, it appears that in many cases, doctors do little research beyond what pharmaceutical reps tell them[1].
This seems to have a lot to do with time constraints. Doctors report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading medical journals, and they only read the full text of about a third of the articles they read[2]. On average, the FDA approves about three new drugs each month. If new drugs were all a doctor needed to read about, 6 hours for each one might be enough to get a decent idea of safety and efficacy. But of course, that's not all a doctor needs to read up on.
But of course that has no bearing on whether doctors know how to read scientific papers.
[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/
It is a little more than that, he is saying that US research has an obvious bias that he was not aware of.
I'm not sure if your post is intended as sarcasm or not. If the bias was obvious, how could he not be aware of it?
Obvious can also mean Easily understood or Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety not just Easily perceived. Basicly as soon as you look at the requirements to study pot in the US the bias is easy to notice until then it's easy to overlook.
Ehh, it'd be nice if authorities made perfect pronouncements, but they don't, which is why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. You shouldn't be for or against medical marijuana based on what a celebrity says, even if he's a celebrity doctor.
But conversely it's unfair to criticize an authority for being fallible. At least today, at least in this case, Dr Sanjay Gupta is one of the good guys. Not for espousing one opinion or another, but because he's publicly changed his mind after considering more evidence. Maybe he has incomplete evidence, and maybe in the future he'll change his mind three or four ways from more evidence. But he's basing his opinion on evidence and telling you what that evidence is.
But conversely it's unfair to criticize an authority for being fallible. At least today, at least in this case, Dr Sanjay Gupta is one of the good guys. Not for espousing one opinion or another, but because he's publicly changed his mind after considering more evidence. Maybe he has incomplete evidence, and maybe in the future he'll change his mind three or four ways from more evidence. But he's basing his opinion on evidence and telling you what that evidence is.
Perhaps you are venting your outrage about U.S. based armchair experts in lieu of tackling your own homegrown quacks and associations promoting quackery in your country, because moronic English scofflaws forbid you from so much as expressing your frustration, much less dishing out a sound shellacking.
The British Chiropractic Association has sued science writer Simon Singh for a piece written in the Guardian's comment pages criticizing the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments on children with conditions such as colic and asthma, when there is little evidence such treatments work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
"English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.
In the area of medicine alone, fear of libel means that good research is not always published because those with vested interests might sue, and bad research that should be withdrawn is not pulled because the authors might sue the journal, and in both cases it is the public that loses out because the truth is never exposed. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are OK, because I won despite the libel laws. We still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-l...
So next time around, practice what you preach, perhaps.
The British Chiropractic Association has sued science writer Simon Singh for a piece written in the Guardian's comment pages criticizing the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments on children with conditions such as colic and asthma, when there is little evidence such treatments work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
"English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.
In the area of medicine alone, fear of libel means that good research is not always published because those with vested interests might sue, and bad research that should be withdrawn is not pulled because the authors might sue the journal, and in both cases it is the public that loses out because the truth is never exposed. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are OK, because I won despite the libel laws. We still have the most notoriously anti-free speech libel laws in the free world."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-l...
So next time around, practice what you preach, perhaps.
Did I misunderstand something here? Are you really saying that because the country he happens to be from has some problems in a certain area, he can't criticise similar problems in countries he happens not to be from?
The Singh case flagged up a problem which drew massive support (which is still ongoing and should improve the situation some epoch). Also, he won.
The Singh case flagged up a problem which drew massive support (which is still ongoing and should improve the situation some epoch). Also, he won.
Also, he won.
Being an expert in something doesn't prevent you from talking crap on the subject, you need trust for that.
I was much happier before I found out today that ridiculous piece was ever widely published. Ugh.
Highly educated people, especially medical doctors, love to opine on topics outside their field of expertise. So I'm willing to give Gupta a pass on the gamma radiation bit--it's just how surgeons are. That said, this article is about physiology. Gupta is a medical doctor licensed in three states, a member of the faculty of Emory Medical School, etc, so I think this one is within his domain of expertise.
> Highly educated people, especially medical doctors, love to opine on topics outside their field of expertise. So I'm willing to give Gupta a pass on the gamma radiation bit--it's just how surgeons are.
Programmers are that way as well, even if they are not highly educated.
Programmers are that way as well, even if they are not highly educated.
I've noticed that programmers tend to think that they're highly educated, even when they're not.
I think it's a problem if we think of him as a scientist.
At his previous job, he might have been.
Now? Now he's an entertainer. That's what media figures are.
Like Ann Coulter or Rachel Maddow, or even John Stewart or Matt Drudge, his job is to entertain you with the news.
He's going to write about whatever topic that a lot of people enjoy, and make it seem exciting and new.
It's no different from what Oprah or Katie Couric do. This is the great secret of the news media and the voices for public science.
Their job is to sell ads by entertaining a majority of us. Truth and science are secondary considerations.
At his previous job, he might have been.
Now? Now he's an entertainer. That's what media figures are.
Like Ann Coulter or Rachel Maddow, or even John Stewart or Matt Drudge, his job is to entertain you with the news.
He's going to write about whatever topic that a lot of people enjoy, and make it seem exciting and new.
It's no different from what Oprah or Katie Couric do. This is the great secret of the news media and the voices for public science.
Their job is to sell ads by entertaining a majority of us. Truth and science are secondary considerations.
I have no medical issues that marijuana could treat, but I still want to use it for recreational purposes without being persecuted for breaking the law. I am a functional member of society. I have a job and a college degree, and I love to get stoned as shit and play video games. The fact that medical research is increasingly supporting decriminalization is great; however, I am wary of the movement to pigeonhole the substance into the realm of prescription drugs while stopping short of full-scale legalization. I believe that society has more or less struck the right balance between structure and self-regulation on the issue of alcohol consumption, and I see no reason why marijuana cannot exist similarly - especially given that it is a considerably less harmful substance. Policy should be concerned with preventing kids from smoking it and preventing people from driving under the influence, but aside from that I think the people can figure it out for themselves.
"Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed."
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Show them the research, summarize it in plain language if needed, then let them make their own choice. Really, you can't do much more than that.
I wonder if one could synthesize cards that change color when exposed to MJ fumes? I bet you could sell those like crazy.
I wonder if one could synthesize cards that change color when exposed to MJ fumes? I bet you could sell those like crazy.
I should imagine it's a bit like cigarettes. I have one friend that was stupid enough to start smoking in his 20's, but he's an outlier. I'd imagine if you did without fags or dope until your mid-20's, you'd be unlikely to bother starting.
He was using the conditional tense which maybe explains things.
Completely anecdotal of course, but I've never met someone who smoked pot in their teen years who wasn't a layabout stoner with no future prospects in the 20s. Meanwhile, I know plenty who started smoking pot in college who were just fine.
I think any drug that affects a developing brain can have grave consequences. I would love to see research that follows people who start MJ use at different stages of their lives.
I think any drug that affects a developing brain can have grave consequences. I would love to see research that follows people who start MJ use at different stages of their lives.
Well, if distribution of pot was more like that of alcohol or cigarettes, kids would have a harder time getting their hands on it.
> "We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that."
It takes a large soul to admit, in public, that you've been wrong about something that has to do with your profession.
And he's right, Americans have been misled about hemp and its products:
http://cannabis.neocities.org/
It takes a large soul to admit, in public, that you've been wrong about something that has to do with your profession.
And he's right, Americans have been misled about hemp and its products:
http://cannabis.neocities.org/
the headline should read "over-credulous member of establishment is finally swayed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, although he has to travel to the ends of the earth to be convinced"
Or, "it's not enough that he agrees with me, agrees publicly with me, and apologized for disagreeing with me; the manner in which he arrived at his agreement with me is offensive, so let's make that a topic of conversation."
Does somebody deserve a cookie for doing the right thing and apologizing for using their image in the media to malign those they now agree with? I'm glad he changed his mind, but he doesn't deserve a special thank you and people are right to be bitter about it.
Maybe some people feel insulted after having been maligned for so many years. Gupta, as a member of the establishment that advocated against medical use of marijuana deserves some ire for his part in that. He faithfully preached the party line uncritically, and in absence of credible evidence, he now admits. Maybe you can forgive those who may remain skeptical of Gupta's motives (since none of us can know what they are anyway). I'm glad he's changed his stance. I think it is great. But, I understand why some people are annoyed at a subject-matter expert who admits that he had based his professional opinion on government propaganda.
I love this argument. It needs to become a reflexive and memetic response whenever anyone places someone in a damned-if-you-do situation for improving their position.
He's an extremely visible character expressing medical opinions on a regular basis to a large portion of the US population, shouldn't he have already done his research instead of being a tool? Does the past no longer exist, no such thing as "damned because he did?"
Gupta's defense is the sort of defense that will reach people like my mother convincing them that marijuana is not evil and has real medical uses. That outcome is a good thing and I do not wish any harm to his reputation now because it will be against my interest and I'm hoping/assuming having "done the research" this time will give persons like you ammo for pushing him to defend his position in the future.
I don't think the past goes away but generally I'd rather not condition people to not admit mistakes. And here I'd rather win now than be right now. Then maybe be right in the future.
I don't think the past goes away but generally I'd rather not condition people to not admit mistakes. And here I'd rather win now than be right now. Then maybe be right in the future.
you sounding real crazy right now... giving false scientific opinions when you make a living as a medical 'educator' because its better for you personally is cool now?
Dude coulda, woulda, shoulda been surgeon general with that much influence i would expect this dude to actually scientifically analyze stuff before giving his scientific evaluation.
Dude coulda, woulda, shoulda been surgeon general with that much influence i would expect this dude to actually scientifically analyze stuff before giving his scientific evaluation.
He deserves some credit for having fessed up to being wrong.
On other topics, especially in economics, the punditry is full of people who have been hilariously wrong for years, having made predictions a long time ago that have been clearly incorrect, and who still have never once even hinted that their models were wrong.
Yes, Gupta should have done his research earlier. But compared to a lot of the scum in the media, he is basically a saint. He deserves to be praised, if only to encourage others to follow his lead and admit when they were wrong.
On other topics, especially in economics, the punditry is full of people who have been hilariously wrong for years, having made predictions a long time ago that have been clearly incorrect, and who still have never once even hinted that their models were wrong.
Yes, Gupta should have done his research earlier. But compared to a lot of the scum in the media, he is basically a saint. He deserves to be praised, if only to encourage others to follow his lead and admit when they were wrong.
This is a good thing, I think. If even establishment figures are starting to realize the destructiveness of these policies then so much the better for those who are affected by them.
Honest question: How many drug companies' bottom lines would be affected if marijuana was legalized right now?
Reminds me of the quote: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
Reminds me of the quote: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
The problem with drug and tobacco companies is that marijuana is a garden weed. Anyone can grow it (if it becomes legal). Or rather, no large investment to start a weed farm.
Tobacco and drug manufacturing plants require a significant larger investment. So the lobby for anti-marijuana is strong and controlled by rich people.
Tobacco and drug manufacturing plants require a significant larger investment. So the lobby for anti-marijuana is strong and controlled by rich people.
Tomatoes are a garden weed; most people still buy them from stores. Just because you can grow something yourself, doesn't mean most people will when it's much easier to simply buy it.
[deleted]
Eh, I dunno. Brand names are powerful. Standardization is powerful. If marijuana were legal I could see there being a lot of money in being the McDonald's of pot. Low price, universal availability, and lots of advertising can lift a mediocre product quite high.
The thing is, we are not talking about "brands" but "strains". You could get seeds for the best marijuana strain that is out there and grow it yourself. No need for "brands".
You can, but you can also make the value calculations in your head and decide that instead of learning how to properly cultivate it, keeping bad plants out, and the time/money consumed in a quality growing op, you'd rather just throw a bit of cash at someone else and use all that time for other things.
There are only so many hours in a day, and outsourcing those hours for a little money is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a real industry will pop up around this.
There are only so many hours in a day, and outsourcing those hours for a little money is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a real industry will pop up around this.
Strains are brands themselves, hence why they have catchy names. I think we'll see differentiation here too.
If nothing else, branding certainly kicks in once you consider the market for edibles. We have brands for store-bought brownies right now; we'll have brands for store-bought pot brownies too.
Drug companies would be affected positively by MJ legalization. Look at how drugs are developed and marketed, at how drug companies compete with generics over marginal improvements in outcomes (or, sometimes, no improvement at all), and look at the conditions from which drug companies derive most of their profits. It's hard to see much of a threat from cannabis.
For that matter, look at Abbott Labs, one of the largest pharma companies in the world; a huge portion of their revenues come from consumable products that aren't the product of a drug research pipeline (for instance, Abbott owns the Ensure meal replacement product).
Stipulating full MJ legalization, cannabis and its active ingredients will simply become a new vector for productization by existing major health care companies.
For that matter, look at Abbott Labs, one of the largest pharma companies in the world; a huge portion of their revenues come from consumable products that aren't the product of a drug research pipeline (for instance, Abbott owns the Ensure meal replacement product).
Stipulating full MJ legalization, cannabis and its active ingredients will simply become a new vector for productization by existing major health care companies.
Agreed. They've already been doing their own research and if they haven't they're ramping up now because of Colorado and Washington.
History shows that the major pharmaceutical companies will try every dirty trick in the book to position themselves as the exclusive producers of medical cannabis if and when the plant is descheduled at the federal level.
Could you please point me to the part of history that shows that?
http://www.clear-uk.org/gw-pharmaceuticals-and-the-uk-home-o...
They won't necessarily call it cannabis, it will be a "cannabis product" flying under some other name. Also, does the history of generic meds policy not tell you something? These companies are fiercely anti-competitive. Another case study in a separate market is how alcohol distillation, for instance, is kept illegal.
They won't necessarily call it cannabis, it will be a "cannabis product" flying under some other name. Also, does the history of generic meds policy not tell you something? These companies are fiercely anti-competitive. Another case study in a separate market is how alcohol distillation, for instance, is kept illegal.
Aspirin. Bayer. People used to chew willow.
That said they did isolate it, so it's not parity, but at least peripheral.
That said they did isolate it, so it's not parity, but at least peripheral.
Drug companies would be able to profit by selling marijuana and trivial derivatives.
I think the more persistent lobbies will be other "sin" industries - tobacco, alcohol, etc.
I think the more persistent lobbies will be other "sin" industries - tobacco, alcohol, etc.
I don't think legalized marijuana will negatively affect the alcohol or tobacco industries in the slightest. We've reached the point where if you want to smoke weed, the law is not going to stop you. Alcohol and tobacco are by no means "replacements" or "substitutes" for weed; they are often consumed together.
I was under the impression that the primary anti-marijuana lobbies were funded by tobacco companies along with the beer/liquor industry. Medical use aside, marijuana would primarily be competing with those other recreational substances.
Tobacco companies have no problems with marijuana - that's a new product line for them! They already have the machinery in place to roll cigarettes, so it's probably easy enough to change the substance inside of it.
drug companies, alcohol companies, and the law enforcement industry would all take a hit
This is a surprisingly thoughtful article for CNN.
I too am surprised to see such an article on CNN.
The one thing it doesn't touch on is the cost we have incurred as a nation by making it illegal. We have seen this before with prohibition, it didn't stop people from drinking it just made better criminals. Once we legalize it we can stop spending money fighting it and start taxing it!
Of course the funny thing will be watching all the farmers in Illinois plow down their corn fields to crow weed! Yes I am aware of what it takes to grown corn in terms of resources, time, and cost and at the current market rate for weed those fields would be plowed under in record time!
The one thing it doesn't touch on is the cost we have incurred as a nation by making it illegal. We have seen this before with prohibition, it didn't stop people from drinking it just made better criminals. Once we legalize it we can stop spending money fighting it and start taxing it!
Of course the funny thing will be watching all the farmers in Illinois plow down their corn fields to crow weed! Yes I am aware of what it takes to grown corn in terms of resources, time, and cost and at the current market rate for weed those fields would be plowed under in record time!
It's unlikely that the end of prohibition would have a large impact on agriculture; growing weed usually requires an indoor or greenhouse environment to prevent pollination, it doesn't really lend itself to large-scale production, and the amount that people smoke is minuscule compared to tobacco/cigarettes. Of course, tobacco companies could roll out some industrial processing machines and drive the price of production down near to zero, but as long as the government uses taxes to keep the price high, people will demand the kind of quality that requires more of a greenhouse type of a solution.
I'm not increadibly fammilar with current agriculturual laws in the US, but my understanding is that we are still artificially limiting crop production (a temporary measure from the great depression). Given that, it is not clear to me what the actual cost to farmers of replacing corn with weed is.
I am not that surprised. Dog biting man is not an interesting news. Man biting a dog - that's something. So, anti-cannabies doctor is a common creature, the opposite - that's catching subject.
"We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that."
Wow. Ownership of a mistake. Rare to see on a 24 hour news network. +1 for Sanjay
Considering CNN's role (as a 24 hour news network) in forcing politician's to defend anything and everything they've ever said, I really like seeing something like this coming from someone within the network. Especially about something as absurd as the illegality of medical marijuana.
Wow. Ownership of a mistake. Rare to see on a 24 hour news network. +1 for Sanjay
Considering CNN's role (as a 24 hour news network) in forcing politician's to defend anything and everything they've ever said, I really like seeing something like this coming from someone within the network. Especially about something as absurd as the illegality of medical marijuana.
Yes, taking ownership of your obvious flaws is often an effective maneuver. By so doing you minimize the effect of external critics calling attention to them. ( related: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging )
I do think he's doing the smart/right thing (now).
I do think he's doing the smart/right thing (now).
> Wow. Ownership of a mistake. Rare to see on a 24 hour news network.
Renouncing a position that was formerly nearly universally held in favor of one that seems to be the new trend isn't actually that rare.
Renouncing a position that was formerly nearly universally held in favor of one that seems to be the new trend isn't actually that rare.
To be fair, it's somewhat rare to admit that's what you're doing so explicitly. Most public figures who do this kind of thing try to pretend like it never happened.
indeed, they should be commended. but equally, that's not a very high bar.
>"I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young, developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible heightened risk of developing psychosis."
The same is actually true of alcohol. Unfortunately, the discussion has become so black and white (legalization vs. prohibition) that no one is even pausing to consider what is actually optimal.
I wish I could get this message through clearly: the crowd on Reddit could benefit from learning the actual risks. Yes, I am in favor of legalization or decriminalization. No, young people should not use pot or alcohol often.
It's hard not to scream at kids as I pass them in a part of the city where they - some of them not even old enough to drive - are burning away up to 10 IQ points. Perhaps if their teachers and parents taught them the real risks rather than fear-mongering nonsense, we would see fewer kids throwing away precious intelligence.
The same is actually true of alcohol. Unfortunately, the discussion has become so black and white (legalization vs. prohibition) that no one is even pausing to consider what is actually optimal.
I wish I could get this message through clearly: the crowd on Reddit could benefit from learning the actual risks. Yes, I am in favor of legalization or decriminalization. No, young people should not use pot or alcohol often.
It's hard not to scream at kids as I pass them in a part of the city where they - some of them not even old enough to drive - are burning away up to 10 IQ points. Perhaps if their teachers and parents taught them the real risks rather than fear-mongering nonsense, we would see fewer kids throwing away precious intelligence.
This is a fine article, as are the other front page stories on e-cigarettes in New York and cycling in the Netherlands. It's submitted by one of HN's most respected participants from a major US media source. While obviously "of interest to Hackers", it's far from exclusively so. It's also currently the top story on Reddit. I like the discussion of this topic better here than Reddit, but there are some good points on Reddit as well: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jy7xa/dr_sanjay_g...
Thomas: how does this article accord with your comments here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093
As this is also a contentious legal, social, and political issue, I worry that the currently 'better' level of discourse will be hard to maintain.
Thomas: how does this article accord with your comments here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093
As this is also a contentious legal, social, and political issue, I worry that the currently 'better' level of discourse will be hard to maintain.
I dont smoke but I drink. I think alcohol is a more dangerous drug in terms of causing addiction and inciting violence. When was the last brawl you saw started when weed was the agitator? Nicotine in cigarettes are far more addictive than thc.
I saw a short news report (over a decade ago) about a Swiss heroin addict who daily attended a clinic to be given heroin (not methadone) for free (the cost of legally available heroin would be minimal).
She was able to hold down a job, pay rent and had no need to beg or commit crime to fund the habit.
She also could afford to eat properly and was no longer at risk of acquiring disease through contaminated drugs, dirty needles or prostitution.
Also methadone is an absolute destroyer of teeth not least because of the slowness to provide a sugar free variety. It's also highly addictive in its own right I believe.
She was able to hold down a job, pay rent and had no need to beg or commit crime to fund the habit.
She also could afford to eat properly and was no longer at risk of acquiring disease through contaminated drugs, dirty needles or prostitution.
Also methadone is an absolute destroyer of teeth not least because of the slowness to provide a sugar free variety. It's also highly addictive in its own right I believe.
I think a lot of problems in the world can come down to whether you try to force people to act in an ideal fashion, or whether you try to deal with people as they are. Drug policy certainly qualifies, anyway.
From the latter perspective, your heroin addict is a massive success story. She's contributing to society instead of being a burden, and the cost is low.
From the former perspective, this is a terrible story. You're supporting drug addiction!
The former perspective rarely works, but it's extremely common, on subjects ranging from drugs to crime to tax policy to education. It is IMO a cop-out, where you simply rely on vague principles rather than actually applying thought and study.
From the latter perspective, your heroin addict is a massive success story. She's contributing to society instead of being a burden, and the cost is low.
From the former perspective, this is a terrible story. You're supporting drug addiction!
The former perspective rarely works, but it's extremely common, on subjects ranging from drugs to crime to tax policy to education. It is IMO a cop-out, where you simply rely on vague principles rather than actually applying thought and study.
I think people are forgetting his target audience, which is probably older. I doubt many young people watch CNN. Even the title "Why I Changed My Mind On Weed" sounds like it was written for the Readers Digest, which I used to read as a kid because my grandmother would give me her copies.
What does his audience have to do with him being unprincipled and self-promoting?
I think being borderline unprincipled and very self-promoting comes with the territory of being a TV personality, so if we factor that out, he's actually doing marijuana advocates a huge favor by speaking to the older generation of voters who have endured decades of propaganda against marijuana and who now, by listening to the most credible TV doctor in America, might vote to legalize.
"Sure, he's a tool...but now he's our tool."
has Gupta let you down some how? You sound bitter. I'm not that much interested in him or the issue. He's getting on the marijauna train or to quote some Dylan: The times, they are a changin'... You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows... Gotta serve somebody ;-)
You're damn right I'm bitter. Did you know there are actual people languishing in actual prison due to the incurious mindset he supported for years? You're inhuman if you don't see a problem with that without speculating that I'm affected personally by this jackass.
On the contrary, I stay the hell away from people like him, and he has a lot more to answer for than is satisfied by his upper-crust PR-driven atonement assigned to him by the church of TV for the purpose of lining his wallet. Same goes for Obama and AG Eric Holder.
How's this for Dylan?
On the contrary, I stay the hell away from people like him, and he has a lot more to answer for than is satisfied by his upper-crust PR-driven atonement assigned to him by the church of TV for the purpose of lining his wallet. Same goes for Obama and AG Eric Holder.
How's this for Dylan?
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.Now I understand your point of view, which I share. Much of this nation's drug war is an outrageous assault on civil liberties, from "we'll drop the charges if you forfeit assets" to swat teams breaking down the wrong door and shooting the family dog. People are still in prison for convictions long ago on outdated marijuana laws. Gupta is not hugely guilty here, but "choom gang" Obama and Holder are for continuing this madness, and now we're finding out the NSA data is being shared with local law enforcement.[1]
[1] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882
[1] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882
NSA data is also being shared with the IRS:
http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/
http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/
One title from RD which still sticks out in my mind: "My Posse Don't Do Homework".
Teens these days with their 'smart' phones! This is interesting and something I'm just learning [from Wikipedia]:
For many years, Reader's Digest was the best-selling consumer magazine in the United States, losing the distinction in 2009 to Better Homes and Gardens...it reaches more readers with household incomes of $100,000+ than Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Inc. combined.
They've got the app market pretty well covered; http://www.rd.com/readers-digest-mobile/
For many years, Reader's Digest was the best-selling consumer magazine in the United States, losing the distinction in 2009 to Better Homes and Gardens...it reaches more readers with household incomes of $100,000+ than Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Inc. combined.
They've got the app market pretty well covered; http://www.rd.com/readers-digest-mobile/
[I'm not talking about most parts of the US, where weed is harder to obtain; I'm talking about most poor countries, where it is readily available]
I've seen many of my friends waste years of their college lives running around like stoned hippies, overeating junk food, and watching absolute trash with loud sounds and bright colors. To make things worse, it's considered a great "social activity", much like going to a bar to get sloshed with friends. Only weed is _much_ easier to get hooked onto, because it's much cheaper than alcohol, and you don't need much more than rolling paper (as opposed to refrigerator, soft drinks etc).
That said, many of them have had very eye-opening experiences where they learn a lot more about the world and themselves. They have formed strong social bonds on the basis of meaningful experiences, and have learnt moderation. They've also found it to be an extremely good analgesic and laxative. Ofcourse, there are sections of society that need it more than anything: chemotherapy patients take it for increased appetite, and people with chronic headaches take it to reduce occurrences (although LSD has been shown to work with an even more extreme form: cluster headaches).
Every substance in the world has a potential for abuse: there are plenty of "sugar junkies" who will live horrible lives and die a painful death, for instance. All in all, the issue is that of education: we need to legalize all these substances, and objectively explain how people can practice moderation. In general, enforcing hard-abstinence is a very poor solution; only repressive regimes should practice them.
I've seen many of my friends waste years of their college lives running around like stoned hippies, overeating junk food, and watching absolute trash with loud sounds and bright colors. To make things worse, it's considered a great "social activity", much like going to a bar to get sloshed with friends. Only weed is _much_ easier to get hooked onto, because it's much cheaper than alcohol, and you don't need much more than rolling paper (as opposed to refrigerator, soft drinks etc).
That said, many of them have had very eye-opening experiences where they learn a lot more about the world and themselves. They have formed strong social bonds on the basis of meaningful experiences, and have learnt moderation. They've also found it to be an extremely good analgesic and laxative. Ofcourse, there are sections of society that need it more than anything: chemotherapy patients take it for increased appetite, and people with chronic headaches take it to reduce occurrences (although LSD has been shown to work with an even more extreme form: cluster headaches).
Every substance in the world has a potential for abuse: there are plenty of "sugar junkies" who will live horrible lives and die a painful death, for instance. All in all, the issue is that of education: we need to legalize all these substances, and objectively explain how people can practice moderation. In general, enforcing hard-abstinence is a very poor solution; only repressive regimes should practice them.
Weed is easier to get hooked onto than alcohol? Do you mean in some hypothetical universe where weed is legal and widely available? Because that's definitely not the case right now.
I'm from the same place as the artagnon. Anti-weed laws are almost never enforced, and weed is incredibly cheap (you'll get enough weed to get 10 people stoned out of their minds for the price of a bottle of beer). And the ease of storage means you can easily maintain a huge stash.
In my opinion, alcohol is very much easier to get hooked on to. Why? Because it's legal. Want a beer? Sure, grab a pack when you get back from work. Buy a bottle of wine while you are at it too!
True, but let's factor out the current state of availability of weed in most parts of the US for a second here.
"Only weed is _much_ easier to get hooked onto, because it's much cheaper than alcohol, and you don't need much more than rolling paper (as opposed to refrigerator, soft drinks etc)."
Stop spewing bullshit. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. A gram of marijuana costs $10-20 and that will get 4 people properly stoned with some even left over. Meanwhile, I could go to a liquor store and buy a handle of shitty vodka for under $20. A handle will get you 40+ shots, which will definitely get more than 4 people drunk.
Stop spewing bullshit. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. A gram of marijuana costs $10-20 and that will get 4 people properly stoned with some even left over. Meanwhile, I could go to a liquor store and buy a handle of shitty vodka for under $20. A handle will get you 40+ shots, which will definitely get more than 4 people drunk.
Furthermore, that bottle of vodka can kill a full grown man. That gram of weed? It couldn't even kill a scrawny teenager; not a chance in hell.
It's encouraging to see public opinion and the medical community evolve on the issue of medical marijuana. However, there still remains an ambiguous interpretation to the way the substance is treated between State and Federal governments. For example, in my home state of Oregon the laws on medical marijuana possession are quite liberal, yet the consequences at the Federal level make progress on the issue nearly void. Furthermore the consequences at the state level in Oregon for illegal possession of marijuana remain quite harsh [1].
My biggest concern is that people who otherwise wouldn't be criminal are becoming lifelong criminals by getting locked up for a relatively harmless substance. From a financial standpoint, our government needs to tax the substance so we aren't treating a large portion of the economy differently than any other industry.
[1] http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon-marijua...
My biggest concern is that people who otherwise wouldn't be criminal are becoming lifelong criminals by getting locked up for a relatively harmless substance. From a financial standpoint, our government needs to tax the substance so we aren't treating a large portion of the economy differently than any other industry.
[1] http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon-marijua...
Cool. Can we have a dispassionate review of Performance Enhancing Drugs now? I'd be interested to see how harmful they are compared to alcohol, tobacco, MJ etc.
I found it interesting they did not comment on the means of using weed. Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes.
Even after the Feds remove it from the list there will be regulation governing its sale. You can grow tobacco all you want; most people don't because prep is much harder than marijuana; but run afoul of a few laws should you try to sell it.
It would certainly reduce the jailed population of this country and possibly even reduce the usage of harder drugs, after all if there was a legal outlet most people take the easy route
Even after the Feds remove it from the list there will be regulation governing its sale. You can grow tobacco all you want; most people don't because prep is much harder than marijuana; but run afoul of a few laws should you try to sell it.
It would certainly reduce the jailed population of this country and possibly even reduce the usage of harder drugs, after all if there was a legal outlet most people take the easy route
It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched, domestic violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.
In many major metro areas, you're more likely to be ticketed for cannabis than arrested.
I haven't taken the time to come up with a conclusive answer for myself on the extent to which cannabis criminalization imprisons people in the US; maybe it's as bad as people think it is. I just think it's worth doing some research on.
In many major metro areas, you're more likely to be ticketed for cannabis than arrested.
I haven't taken the time to come up with a conclusive answer for myself on the extent to which cannabis criminalization imprisons people in the US; maybe it's as bad as people think it is. I just think it's worth doing some research on.
Actually it has been demonstrated that cannabis can cause brain damage in teenagers. How's that for "less harmful than tobacco"?
[Citation needed.]
How many instances in a sampling size? How large was the sampling size? How rigorous was the study? Peer reviewed? Publisher?
Offhand, I can immediately tell you the overwhelming evidence is that tobacco (cigarettes) is far more harmful than cannabis. I direct your attention to the myth of cannabis being as harmful as x number of cigarettes[1] and the myth that cannabis harms brain cells[2]. While it does alter the brain, it is up for heavy debate whether it's harmful, especially on long-term use.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_il...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_il...
How many instances in a sampling size? How large was the sampling size? How rigorous was the study? Peer reviewed? Publisher?
Offhand, I can immediately tell you the overwhelming evidence is that tobacco (cigarettes) is far more harmful than cannabis. I direct your attention to the myth of cannabis being as harmful as x number of cigarettes[1] and the myth that cannabis harms brain cells[2]. While it does alter the brain, it is up for heavy debate whether it's harmful, especially on long-term use.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_il...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions_about_il...
knock yourself out:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/135/7/2245
Of course, you could have googled this up yourself in 10 seconds but I guess people believe what they want to believe.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/135/7/2245
Of course, you could have googled this up yourself in 10 seconds but I guess people believe what they want to believe.
I appreciate that you came back with a legitimate citation, but the rest of your comment is uncalled for. What I googled were the points that defend my position, not the other way around - the burden for that is on the opposing defense, not my own.
What about my comments appears as though I just look for self-validating information and ignore the rest? The parts where I questioned scientific rigor, sampling size, case instances, etc?
What about my comments appears as though I just look for self-validating information and ignore the rest? The parts where I questioned scientific rigor, sampling size, case instances, etc?
And this is why I typically upvote your remarks even outside of security expertise.
This data point is over a decade old, but still:
"the proportion of state prison inmates who were sentenced for marijuana-only offenses rose from 2.6% in 1990 to 3.6% in 2000"
http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf
The DOJ reported that there were 1,236,476 state inmates in 2000 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf). So 3.6% of that would be 44,513 state inmates who were imprisoned for marijuana only in 2000.
"the proportion of state prison inmates who were sentenced for marijuana-only offenses rose from 2.6% in 1990 to 3.6% in 2000"
http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf
The DOJ reported that there were 1,236,476 state inmates in 2000 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf). So 3.6% of that would be 44,513 state inmates who were imprisoned for marijuana only in 2000.
It's important to remember that in most states, sentences of under one year are served in county jails, not state prisons. The state prison numbers you describe are likely significantly to understate both absolute numbers and relative proportion, for this reason.
That's a very good point that I should have addressed. The cited ACLU article goes on to say:
"King and Mauer (2005) estimate that at least 68,000 people were in prison, on probation, or serving a jail sentence for a marijuana offense in 2003"
So, that's 52% higher than the number I quoted for state prisons.
"King and Mauer (2005) estimate that at least 68,000 people were in prison, on probation, or serving a jail sentence for a marijuana offense in 2003"
So, that's 52% higher than the number I quoted for state prisons.
> It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched, domestic violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.
Its been a while since I saw figures, but last I did domestic violence was at the top of the reasons people were sentenced to incarceration (that is, if you did a ticker at the door, it would be the most common reason) but narcotics were the most common reason people were incarcerated (that is, if you did a count of the currently incarcerated population, drugs would be the most common reason.)
The difference, of course, is length of sentence.
I don't think marijuana is all that high a share of those incarcerated for drugs, but if you are using the prominence of the reason people get incarcerated rather than the prominence of the reason people are incarcerated as your standard, you aren't looking at the right issue.
Its been a while since I saw figures, but last I did domestic violence was at the top of the reasons people were sentenced to incarceration (that is, if you did a ticker at the door, it would be the most common reason) but narcotics were the most common reason people were incarcerated (that is, if you did a count of the currently incarcerated population, drugs would be the most common reason.)
The difference, of course, is length of sentence.
I don't think marijuana is all that high a share of those incarcerated for drugs, but if you are using the prominence of the reason people get incarcerated rather than the prominence of the reason people are incarcerated as your standard, you aren't looking at the right issue.
Wow, that's a good point that I hadn't considered when I was looking at the stats.
This is worth an article, right there.
In many major metro areas, you're more likely to be ticketed for cannabis than arrested.
Depending on certain attributes that in practice cause one to end up in cuffs nonetheless.
Depending on certain attributes that in practice cause one to end up in cuffs nonetheless.
It's less harmful than cigarettes - nicotine is a vasoconstrictor and bronchioconstrictor. Weed is neither, and actually also has expectorant qualities, so you tend to cough most of the tar back up.
That said, smoking anything is not good for you, but IMHO it's up to the individual what risk they take with their body.
That said, smoking anything is not good for you, but IMHO it's up to the individual what risk they take with their body.
Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes
That's what common sense would have us believe, but cigarette smoke is indeed much worse for you than marijuana smoke.
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-...
from the abstract:
>In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.
That's what common sense would have us believe, but cigarette smoke is indeed much worse for you than marijuana smoke.
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-...
from the abstract:
>In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.
[deleted]
> Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes.
It is probably way better for you than cigarettes based on the amount smoked.
It is probably way better for you than cigarettes based on the amount smoked.
the reason cigarettes are so dangerous is the tar and carbon monoxide. Smoking weed does not have that problem.
Also, many people vaporize their weed or use wick to smoke with - which lowers the temperature of the heat. Across the board, smoking weed is much safer than smoking cigarettes
Also, many people vaporize their weed or use wick to smoke with - which lowers the temperature of the heat. Across the board, smoking weed is much safer than smoking cigarettes
Aren't tar and carbon monoxide (CO especially) kind of explicitly what you get from burning plant matter?
"Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes." --- well, it's complicated, but read this as a starting point:
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-c...
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-c...
I really can't understand it when people claim to be addicted to weed. From what I hear, it's not chemically addictive, so can it really be claimed so if the addiction is placebic?
People probably are not actually chemically addicted to weed, but rather habitually inclined to keep doing an activity that gives them pleasure or has positive benefits in their life. Not too much different from what happens with "runner's high" and eating potato chips :)
>I really can't understand it when people claim to be addicted to weed.
Well, I really can't understand how people can be addicted to gambling. Doesn't mean it's not a problem for some.
Well, I really can't understand how people can be addicted to gambling. Doesn't mean it's not a problem for some.
There are (arguably) different forms of addiction: Physical and psychological. Physical addiction is the more dangerous of the two, as it can induce truly horrifying symptoms during withdrawals. (Delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawals, for example.)
Marijuana--and indeed almost anything--can be psychologically addictive. As our brains operate chemically, it's a bit misleading to say that psychological addictions have no physical component. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is a key player in many (all?) psychological addictions. But to further complicate matters, dopamine is also heavily involved in the withdrawal process of some harder drugs, such as methamphetamine.
Because the line between physical and psychological addictions is so fuzzy, some professionals eschew the distinction. Still, it seems productive to discuss the nature and severity of withdrawal symptoms for each drug, even if we don't split the drugs into two camps. From that perspective, marijuana addiction is less severe than addiction to heroin, alcohol, and so on.
Marijuana--and indeed almost anything--can be psychologically addictive. As our brains operate chemically, it's a bit misleading to say that psychological addictions have no physical component. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is a key player in many (all?) psychological addictions. But to further complicate matters, dopamine is also heavily involved in the withdrawal process of some harder drugs, such as methamphetamine.
Because the line between physical and psychological addictions is so fuzzy, some professionals eschew the distinction. Still, it seems productive to discuss the nature and severity of withdrawal symptoms for each drug, even if we don't split the drugs into two camps. From that perspective, marijuana addiction is less severe than addiction to heroin, alcohol, and so on.
Part of that is a kind of devil's bargain where "offenders" are put into a treatment program that's doomed to be quack medicine for most of the participants who have no addiction. Better than jail I suppose.
So if they say that they are addicted to weed, they skip jail and instead go to rehab? Makes you wonder.
I know this is a classic libertarian argument, and I hope you will forgive me that, but this whole thing is just silly. Medical considerations around marijuana are at best tertiary considerations. Far more important are 1) personal freedoms and the elimination of the standard of a victimless crime and 2) the incredibly damaging effects of the War on Drugs. Deal with these two and it is obvious that marijuana should be legalized. Who cares about the medical benefits.
Exactly right. Treat it like lettuce.
Starkly absent from the discussion of state-legal pot is the relevance of the US Supreme Court verdict in Raich. That case concluded that regardless of state legality and medical prescription & supervision, the federal government is still justified in executing armed raids on citizen possession of federally-declared contraband - even if the contraband in question never moved inter-state (by any stretch of the imagination), such possession could be regulated (including confiscation) on grounds that intra-state production & possession reduced demand in illegal inter-state commerce therein (as it affected inter-state commerce). [No, I'm not kidding. The ruling is, in fact, that deranged.]
I suspect the DEA will sit back for a while on the subject of state legalization of pot, but at some point they're going to return to exercising intense control over the subject. This will not end well for many.
I suspect the DEA will sit back for a while on the subject of state legalization of pot, but at some point they're going to return to exercising intense control over the subject. This will not end well for many.
As someone who does have schizophrenia and did smoke weed heavily (once a day, an eighth a week), I support its legalization with the caveat that people should be screened for its use and people with likely predisposition for schizophrenia should avoid it, and if Big Pharma (which I hate) wants to develop a version which lowers the likelihood of developing schizophrenia (which I do not believe is likely), I'm all for it. I would not say marijuana use caused schizophrenia in my case, there's a possibility that I would've developed schizophrenia later in life when I had a career, and it might've been worse for me, or might have been better.
I'd also like to add that stimulants, alcohol, and psychedelics are some other classes of drugs to avoid, if you feel you are predisposed to schizophrenia.
I'd also like to add that stimulants, alcohol, and psychedelics are some other classes of drugs to avoid, if you feel you are predisposed to schizophrenia.
I am wondering why British employers are testing employees for drugs usage.
Is this justified? Are cannabies, etc. really affecting badly people? If yes, then it makes sense for the employer to spend its money on tests. If no, it means that employers in UK are victims of some kind of paranoia against cannabies.
Is this justified? Are cannabies, etc. really affecting badly people? If yes, then it makes sense for the employer to spend its money on tests. If no, it means that employers in UK are victims of some kind of paranoia against cannabies.
Not every drug test covers pot. It's much more expensive to test for marijuana than alcohol, meth, heroin, etc., so they usually just cover those.
Which UK companies are carrying out drug tests on their employees? I've never experienced that first-hand, nor heard of it happening second- or even third-hand. It is definitely not widespread practice, and is probably a statistical insignificance.
Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of "medical marijuana" is actually used for the treatment of medical conditions? The de facto medical marijuana regime in California seems to be that anyone who wants marijuana goes to a doctor, says they're anxious or have trouble sleeping, and gets a card. I'm sure some people with legitimate medical problems get relief from using marijuana, but it seems to be a distinct minority.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Recreational users having a steady supply has no real social cost, and sick people getting the care they need has real benefit. But as long as we're going to be talking about medical marijuana in the context of science, it seems like we should compile some kind of statistics on this.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Recreational users having a steady supply has no real social cost, and sick people getting the care they need has real benefit. But as long as we're going to be talking about medical marijuana in the context of science, it seems like we should compile some kind of statistics on this.
Walgreens supposedly prospered during Prohibition because they stocked "medical" whiskey, for which you could get a prescription.
What benefit is there to compiling statistics to say that x% of patients have legitimate medical reasons, and y% don't? Trying to exert tight control on this issue has achieved nothing but disaster and failure, at great expense.
There are legitimate medical uses of alcohol, too. A great many people self-medicate, but it does provide them relief.
Investigating the medical science of the drug is important, yes. But perhaps investigation of the socio/psychological reasons is a red herring.
There are legitimate medical uses of alcohol, too. A great many people self-medicate, but it does provide them relief.
Investigating the medical science of the drug is important, yes. But perhaps investigation of the socio/psychological reasons is a red herring.
This is a great article, but how can you mitigate the abuse of the system by people who just want to smoke weed and complain of headaches or glaucoma?
I'm all for easing the pain of people who have real pain issues, but it's abundantly clear people are abusing the system.
I'm all for easing the pain of people who have real pain issues, but it's abundantly clear people are abusing the system.
Even if what you are saying is correct, what exactly is the harm in that?
There is obvious harm in preventing people from having access to a drug which mitigates their symptoms. There is obvious harm when you imprison someone for a drug related crime. There is obvious harm when you prevent a business from legally existing and profiting from the sale of the substance.
Where is the obvious harm when a user recreationally uses a substance, whether they got it under the false pretext of migraines, or not?
There is obvious harm in preventing people from having access to a drug which mitigates their symptoms. There is obvious harm when you imprison someone for a drug related crime. There is obvious harm when you prevent a business from legally existing and profiting from the sale of the substance.
Where is the obvious harm when a user recreationally uses a substance, whether they got it under the false pretext of migraines, or not?
This is a reasonable question if you think of medical marijuana like most prescription drugs: primarily serving medicinal users, where some recreational users might get it by posing as medicinal users.
But this is not the case, at least not in California. Medicinal marijuana primarily serves recreational users. Medical users get it by posing as recreational users.
By that, I mean that you don't get a prescription for MMJ by going to your normal doctor. You go to the doctor advertised in that shady free newspaper by the bus stop, in the classified section, just past the escorts. That doctor almost certainly "specializes" in medical marijuana, which means that he doesn't actually practice medicine, or do any real evaluation of patients. He just writes prescriptions all day, $70 a pop. Nice gig if you can get it.
(A Colorado doctor landed in trouble for prescribing MMJ to a pregnant woman. He didn't even bother to take her basic medical history.)
This article shares one couple's experiences, with one sick person attempting to go through Kaiser, and one healthy person going through "Dr. Herb Smoker" (the actual name on the nametag): http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-medic...
An excerpt:
...medical pot is readily available to recreational users while it remains inaccessible for many truly sick people who might benefit from it. My wife has no plans to visit Price-Less Evaluations, and I suspect that many people like her wouldn't consult the likes of Dr. Herb Smoker.
So there's your harm. The medical marijuana industry is targeted towards recreational users, in every way - from the decor in the dispensaries, to selling strains bred for getting high instead of getting healthy. Medicinal users are an afterthought.
But this is not the case, at least not in California. Medicinal marijuana primarily serves recreational users. Medical users get it by posing as recreational users.
By that, I mean that you don't get a prescription for MMJ by going to your normal doctor. You go to the doctor advertised in that shady free newspaper by the bus stop, in the classified section, just past the escorts. That doctor almost certainly "specializes" in medical marijuana, which means that he doesn't actually practice medicine, or do any real evaluation of patients. He just writes prescriptions all day, $70 a pop. Nice gig if you can get it.
(A Colorado doctor landed in trouble for prescribing MMJ to a pregnant woman. He didn't even bother to take her basic medical history.)
This article shares one couple's experiences, with one sick person attempting to go through Kaiser, and one healthy person going through "Dr. Herb Smoker" (the actual name on the nametag): http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-medic...
An excerpt:
...medical pot is readily available to recreational users while it remains inaccessible for many truly sick people who might benefit from it. My wife has no plans to visit Price-Less Evaluations, and I suspect that many people like her wouldn't consult the likes of Dr. Herb Smoker.
So there's your harm. The medical marijuana industry is targeted towards recreational users, in every way - from the decor in the dispensaries, to selling strains bred for getting high instead of getting healthy. Medicinal users are an afterthought.
I don't see how you've demonstrated any harm whatsoever.
The interesting part of this article for me is the illumination of the weakness of Science as it's practiced and commissioned by the government today.
For political reasons, the government decided that marijuana was bad - so almost all of the approved research went into confirming that decision. If you'd naively look at the number of papers or scientists who've published the opinion that marijuana is "bad", the evidence would appear overwhelmingly confirmative.
For political reasons, the government decided that marijuana was bad - so almost all of the approved research went into confirming that decision. If you'd naively look at the number of papers or scientists who've published the opinion that marijuana is "bad", the evidence would appear overwhelmingly confirmative.
Fuck Sanjay Gupta. There is no debate to be had. It is not up for discussion. I don't have to justify what I do to my body to fucks like this guy or anyone else.
Marijuana doesn't hurt you. I smoke it on occasion and I don't use it for medical reasons. Here's why:
It allows me to land my spaceship. I see where I'm getting things right in life and where I'm getting them wrong. In essence, it's a great tool for gaining perspective on a myriad of things. It's not something to abuse, but rather, to enjoy.
It's time to let people make their own decision about it. They're fully capable.
It allows me to land my spaceship. I see where I'm getting things right in life and where I'm getting them wrong. In essence, it's a great tool for gaining perspective on a myriad of things. It's not something to abuse, but rather, to enjoy.
It's time to let people make their own decision about it. They're fully capable.
The discussion needs more balanced voices like this. There are a ton of voices already overhyping the harmlessness.
Besides the damage to developing brains, there are more immediate effects on the mind, which are less predictable than alcohol.
Make no mistake: The "learning process" of a society that legalizes weed will involve deaths.
Besides the damage to developing brains, there are more immediate effects on the mind, which are less predictable than alcohol.
Make no mistake: The "learning process" of a society that legalizes weed will involve deaths.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If MJ is so useful medically, wouldn't it be healthier (and easier to control dosage) to injest it, rather than expose your lungs to all that smoke? Hot smoke can't be good for your airways.
And eventually, can't the active substances be put into pill form?
And eventually, can't the active substances be put into pill form?
I had no idea the startup community was so interested in the subject of marijuana. Well, I guess it's just about as interesting as reading a daily blog about somebody's impressions of the Go programming language.
Is Hacker News the new reddit now? Should I start posting graphic memes?
Have you ever changed your mind...ON WEED?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA
[deleted]
I'm quite fascinated by the fact this is on the first page so quickly.
It's evident what all of you get up to in your free time :)
It's evident what all of you get up to in your free time :)
I swear I thought Weed was the name of a startup, and the guy was the name of a tech guru lol, thats why I skipped the article first time it was on first page. If I knew , i would have clicked it the first time hehe
I love the ambiguity in the headline.
Isn't any effect that marijuana has on patients going to be confounded with the placebo effect? Not that I disagree with what is being said, I still have my doubts about the actual medical usage of marijuana, and the studies that have been done on it.
300 seizures a month -> 3 seizures a month is unlikely to be a placebo affect, but plural of anecdotes and all that, sure.
For pain management and quality of life, we probably don't need to worry about the placebo effect too much; instead, we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates.
For pain management and quality of life, we probably don't need to worry about the placebo effect too much; instead, we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates.
"we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates."
This is something that could be major. My wife was in the hospital off and on this summer with stomach pains. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong (ran all of the tests, put her on liquid diet and the pain continued) so her doctor put her on OxyContin until the HMO approved a referral to a research university. The insurance declined the referral stating they wanted a second opinion, so my wife went to get one and the doctor wanted her to get off all of the medications. She did and almost killed herself the day after; the withdrawal from the OxyContin was terrible. If there was a way to manager her pain without constantly worrying about her becoming addicted or worrying that when she stops the med she will end up doing something drastic, it would be amazing!
This is something that could be major. My wife was in the hospital off and on this summer with stomach pains. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong (ran all of the tests, put her on liquid diet and the pain continued) so her doctor put her on OxyContin until the HMO approved a referral to a research university. The insurance declined the referral stating they wanted a second opinion, so my wife went to get one and the doctor wanted her to get off all of the medications. She did and almost killed herself the day after; the withdrawal from the OxyContin was terrible. If there was a way to manager her pain without constantly worrying about her becoming addicted or worrying that when she stops the med she will end up doing something drastic, it would be amazing!
I had back surgery following a few months of severe debilitating nerve pain. The surgery fixed the pain, but I was hooked on prescribed opiate painkillers. I quit the pills cold turkey rather than tapering, because tapering just prolongs the horrible withdrawals... less severe, but longer lasting, and more chances you'll just say F-it and not really taper but stay hooked. I used MJ edibles to zonk myself out silly during the 7 days of the withdrawals so that they would be more tolerable, and that REALLY REALLY helped, and I succeeded.
I am a marijuana user with no medical condition. This is awesome.
I've already said: stay away from my kids.
Better late than never?
[deleted]
Man, I didn't even know who Dr. Gupta was but I fucking love this guy after what his article did to the public.
Just a hype for his movie.
This all reminds me of how some famous supposed atheists convert to a religion X and then write books about it selling millions of copies.
Same shit. You're being manipulated.
We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK. Any idiot with internet access knew that for the last 15 years.
This all reminds me of how some famous supposed atheists convert to a religion X and then write books about it selling millions of copies.
Same shit. You're being manipulated.
We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK. Any idiot with internet access knew that for the last 15 years.
Who are you to say he is mediocre? Can you back this up with any evidence, perhaps with some neuroscience studies you have published?
Plus you would be the idiot if you believed everything you read on the internet over the last 15 years.
Plus you would be the idiot if you believed everything you read on the internet over the last 15 years.
>We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK.
We don't. The US government does. Who do you think they listen to more: the people or the rich and famous? I've certainly never been asked into Congress to testify for anything.
We don't. The US government does. Who do you think they listen to more: the people or the rich and famous? I've certainly never been asked into Congress to testify for anything.
This all reminds me of how some famous supposed atheists convert to a religion X and then write books about it selling millions of copies.
What is this referring to?
What is this referring to?
I was never a stoner, and did not use it until I was 38 years old. I am happy it exists, because I was being treated with Vicodin for pain and was on a schedule of 6 pills a day. Enough that liver damage and addiction started to be a concern. I am allergic to pills in the Percoset family (hives and skin lesions) and I consume about 5 joints a day worth of weed. I don't even get high anymore, but it does help with the pain. It is costing me about $100 per week, compared to the $3 per month the Vicodin cost on my medical insurance. I could buy a new car with the weed money, but couldn't buy a coffee at Starbucks with the Vicodin money.
I hope the government gets around to reclassifying the drug soon. In the current situation, Child Protective Services would take my kids away if I was to consume the drug in front of them. A reclassification would enable more research, more research would lead to easier ways to ingest it. I find food products make me stomach sick, vaporizing doesn't work as well as smoking, and smoking is unappealing and difficult to do with any discretion.
I am fortunate that I can afford it, and can fit it into my schedule (I own my business). Many people need something like MMJ and can neither afford it, nor can they keep their employment with it because of widespread drug testing. While the state I live in says that card holders can't be fired for holding a card, it is a state that has 'right-to-work' laws and you can fire someone for no specified reason at all. (source- I employ ten people).