Legalizing of Marijuana Raises Health Concerns (NY Times)

[Broomstick]

As a general rule, inhaling smoke of any kind on a regular basis will increase your risk of lung disease, including cancer.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, this is separate from inhaling the smoke, though. Some studies that I've seen indicate that it fucks with your estrogen, which is not great if you're a man because of an uncommon-but-not-insignificant heightened potential for maladies like testicular cancer and man boobs. Shit's not harmless, it's just way less harmful than alcohol.

[Broomstick]

I question the often-heard meme that it is inherently "less harmful" than alcohol. Part of the reason we're all so familiar with the harms of alcohol is because it's legal and therefore common. I'd expect that with legalization we'll see more people getting into trouble with pot, whether due to driving buzzed or becoming addicted and spending the rent money on it, and so forth. Just like legal alcohol results in more alcoholics and legal gambling results in more gambling addicts. The upside to these things being legal is the reduced harm from harsh laws that don't really solve the problems and wind up generating bad side effects.

[General Zod]

I question the often-heard meme that it is inherently "less harmful" than alcohol. Part of the reason we're all so familiar with the harms of alcohol is because it's legal and therefore common. I'd expect that with legalization we'll see more people getting into trouble with pot, whether due to driving buzzed or becoming addicted and spending the rent money on it, and so forth. Just like legal alcohol results in more alcoholics and legal gambling results in more gambling addicts. The upside to these things being legal is the reduced harm from harsh laws that don't really solve the problems and wind up generating bad side effects.

That's a bit of a strawman. The argument is that there's no justification to classify marijuana as a schedule 1 drug when it's not significantly worse than alcohol, which isn't schedule 1. If we're going to classify drugs based on how much harm they cause could we at least pretend we're showing some degree of objectivity?

[Broomstick]

I never claimed the decisions were made objectively, I think there was a lot of bias that went into sorting pharmaceuticals into the various schedules. My point was that I disbelieve that marijuana is quite as harmless as some of its proponents claim. As many have pointed out, it's status as Schedule I make studying it extremely difficult so the actual science is lacking.

I don't have any objection to people toking on their own time and in a safe manner. My objection is to people altering their minds then attempting to use potentially hazardous items like vehicles or heavy machinery. Or people who become so obsessed with using it they neglect the rest of their responsibilities. Both alcohol and marijuana can be used responsibly, I don't so much think of one as "better" than the other but it's the end result that I judge. For some, it's a harmless way to relax. For others it's something quite problematic.

[The Kernel]

The whole "stoned driving" thing is a very silly argument in light of this study which shows that Marijuana legalization has a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities and it's really not hard to understand why. People who are stoned are both much less likely to get behind the wheel in the first place (weed impairs judgement but not the way alcohol does) and even if they do are much less likely to cause a traffic accident.

I'm not going to argue here that driving while high is safe by any means but it's clearly safer than drinking and driving and the numbers speak for themselves. A 9% overall reduction in traffic fatalities and a much larger bite into alcohol related fatalities is fucking enormous. Anyone who is for keeping the prohibition on pot after reading that study is pretty damned heartless in my view.

[The Kernel]

That's a bit of a strawman. The argument is that there's no justification to classify marijuana as a schedule 1 drug when it's not significantly worse than alcohol, which isn't schedule 1. If we're going to classify drugs based on how much harm they cause could we at least pretend we're showing some degree of objectivity?

It's even funnier if you actually read the Controlled Substances Act on this issue.

(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(2) Schedule II.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

(3) Schedule III.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

(4) Schedule IV.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

(5) Schedule V.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Based on the above criteria you could make a case for Schedule III classification (which contains such drugs as Anabolic Steroids, weaker Opiods, Ketamine and the Barbiturates that are still legal. However probably a better fit would be to put it in Schedule IV (same class as Benzodiazepines, Modafinil and some really weak Opiods) as I have a hard time seeing how Marijuana has greater addiction or abuse potential than Xanax or Ativan and it certainly has less abuse potential than Modafinil (which is the new performance enhancing drug of the corporate world) or Soma (about the most abused substance in the world, although commonly mixed with Vicodin or Percocet to generate the high people want).

EDIT: That being said, making it a controlled substance at all is a poor idea. Although Marijuana has medicinal value and can/should/is be prescribed as such, there is no reason not to allow recreational use as well. This sort of "dual use" classification isn't unheard of so it makes a lot of sense to separate the two uses entirely.

[The Kernel]

And one other really hilarious thing about drug classifications as long as we are discussing it--check out a list of some of the things that the FDA has classified as Schedule II drugs.

• Cocaine
• Amphetamine, Dextroamphetamine, Dextromethamphetamine and mixed Amphetamine salts like Adderall.
• Opium, Morphine, Hydromorphone, Fentanyl, Demerol and basically all the really strong Opiods.
• PCP (aka Angel Dust)
• The most dangerous of the barbiturate class such as Pentobarbital

Yes, the FDA with a straight face is telling us that Marijuana is more dangerous than these substances. Truly some amazing gymnastics that causes one to actually believe that.

It's also funny to read about the drugs that aren't considered controlled substances like Propathol (a very serious general anesthetic which is famous for killing Michael Jackson) despite the fact that anyone who doesn't have a respirator and an Anesthesiologist handy is going to stop breathing in minutes when pumped full of it.

[Spoonist]

The whole "stoned driving" thing is a very silly argument in light of this study which shows that Marijuana legalization has a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities and it's really not hard to understand why. People who are stoned are both much less likely to get behind the wheel in the first place (weed impairs judgement but not the way alcohol does) and even if they do are much less likely to cause a traffic accident.

I'm not going to argue here that driving while high is safe by any means but it's clearly safer than drinking and driving and the numbers speak for themselves. A 9% overall reduction in traffic fatalities and a much larger bite into alcohol related fatalities is fucking enormous. Anyone who is for keeping the prohibition on pot after reading that study is pretty damned heartless in my view.

I skimmed that study and couldn't find any controls. ie I couldn't find the comparison versus states that didn't implement MML laws. I'm guessing you have read it more thoroughly and can point me to where that comparison is?

[Broomstick]

The whole "stoned driving" thing is a very silly argument in light of this study which shows that Marijuana legalization has a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities and it's really not hard to understand why. People who are stoned are both much less likely to get behind the wheel in the first place (weed impairs judgement but not the way alcohol does) and even if they do are much less likely to cause a traffic accident.

If someone buzzed is less likely to get into an accident it implies everyone should get high prior to turning on the car. It's like the drunk who drives home slowly because he knows he's fucked up - he's altering his behavior because he knows he's not functioning properly. I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

The study itself states that at least part of the effect is due to people using pot in lieu of alcohol. While pot might be less impairing than booze that doesn't mean it makes for safe drivers. The also mentions that use of marijuana leads to a reduction in distance perception, reaction time, and hand-eye coordination. While you can be a safe driver with impaired depth perception (we do, after all, let one-eyed people drive) the other two are of much more concern. Bravo that buzzed drivers increased their compensating behavior, but did they do that because they knew were under observation or because that's what they usually do when unobserved? Worse yet, when alcohol and pot are combined there was an additive effect on impairment, and I can't see how legalizing pot will reduce the odds of combining the two. I think the study does not address the custom aspect of this whole thing - people will go to bars to drink then drive home but I have to wonder if part of the reason pot is associated with fewer accidents is because the tokers do it at home and therefore do less driving.

I don't buy the argument that getting stoned makes you a safer driver. Impairing your judgement and/or physical performance and getting behind the wheel is just stupid. I don't care what's causing the impairment - alcohol, Rx drugs, OTC drugs, pot, attempting to text, being exhausted/sleepy.... It's irresponsible and potentially dangerous and a needless risk. I'd have to see more than just one study, preferably many that look at the issue from many angles, before I can accept that pot makes you a safer driver.

[PainRack]

Does the FDA actually say there's a difference between Marinol vs natural marijuana?

I mean, outside of dose control, which are the exact same problems herbal medications face.....

Yes the FDA lists Marijuana separately as a Schedule I.

Although I will note that there are significant differences between Marinol and smoking marijuana in terms of preventing nausea and increasing appetite. To put it simply, Marinol is only one THC whereas marijuana has a more potent mixture of THC that affects the entire cannaboid system differently, which explains why Marinol is less effective than marijuana with relatively more side effects.

Yes but there's no evidence its more dangerous or addictive. But then again the FDA has never really needed to justify its drug classifications.

Ah... A different argument than what I had in mind then.

That sounds like good reasoning until you consider the reality of the situation. When a person is on a battery of chemotherapy drugs they are being extremely closely monitored by both their Oncologist as well as a Pharmacist to triple check drug interactions. My wife did a rotation in Oncology as part of her PharmD and the amount of attention paid to Pharmacokinetics for Cancer patients is totally unprecedented for any other Ambulatory Care (with the possible exception of Warfarin).

And that's WHY they're put up on the VEERs database, so as to post information about potential problems in the first place. It doesn't change the point that the chances Kyrtril is related to ANY of those incidents is marginal at best.

Still most of the drugs on this list would be in the fairly well tolerated category (you don't see any Tricyclics, MAOIs or Warfarin on the list do you?) and MDs hand many of these prescriptions out like hotcakes.

[/quote]
Not my point actually. I'm simply pointing out how they're unbalancing the report by including spurious reports for what are very safe drugs.

[Raw Shark]

I question the often-heard meme that it is inherently "less harmful" than alcohol. Part of the reason we're all so familiar with the harms of alcohol is because it's legal and therefore common. I'd expect that with legalization we'll see more people getting into trouble with pot, whether due to driving buzzed or becoming addicted and spending the rent money on it, and so forth. Just like legal alcohol results in more alcoholics and legal gambling results in more gambling addicts. The upside to these things being legal is the reduced harm from harsh laws that don't really solve the problems and wind up generating bad side effects.

Even if marijuana was equally as addictive as alcohol (which it is not - running out of weed causes crankiness, anxiety, and insomnia among the heaviest users; running out of alcohol among the heaviest users requires medical supervision) and equally as likely to kill you as alcohol (which it's not - a marijuana overdose puts the user to sleep, at which point it is nearly impossible to consume more and die, without assistance), it would still be the lesser social ill because it has a greater tendency to make people calm and passive despite their emotional state before imbibing, whereas alcohol enhances whatever the user is already feeling (eg: anger). The illegality makes it difficult to study, of course, but based on extensive anecdotal evidence, I would wager a week's pay that more people beat their kids after drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels than after two dozen bong hits.

[Broomstick]

I am NOT interested in arguing the relative merits of pot vs. booze. That completely misses my point which is that pot DOES cause harm in some people. It's not harmless and not entirely benign and it's foolish to hold it forth as such. Smoking it does increase the risk of lung disease. It's not a matter of tobaccoo vs. pot, it's a matter of not smoking anything vs. smoking pot. It's not that a buzzed drive is less dangerous than a drunk one, it's that a buzzed driver is less safe than a non-buzzed one. Saying it's less harmful than X does not make it harmless.

If you legalize pot the use of it will go up. There will be adverse consequences that we will need to deal with. I find it an acceptable trade off because I think the adverse consequences to society as a whole will be less toxic than some of the adverse consequences of the "war on drugs" but I don't dodge the fact that there will be negatives to increased pot use.

This does not mean I'm in favor of complete abstinence. I do think mind-altering substances like alcohol and pot have a role in life. I am a hard-ass about responsible use. If you use don't drive, don't operate heavy machinery, and don't otherwise put yourself in a situation where you might hurt someone else. If you can't control your use then get help. If you're suffering adverse consequences from your use then either cut back or stop. Also realize that some occupations are NOT compatible with the use of these substances not because of laws but because of safety and you may have to at some point have to choose between a job and using your poison of choice. If you want to drive a bus or fly a plane for a living there's simply a lot of stuff out there you simply can't use and then go to work, whether a legal, prescription, or illegal drug. If you're a surgeon and you're on call I'm sorry, I can't approve of you downing a cocktail or smoking a joint when you may be called to a medical emergency (actually, some surgeons also abstain completely from caffeine as they believe it adversely affects their performance, impairment can take many forms).

I do hope that legalizing pot gets rid of the bullshit that having toked in the last three weeks can deny you a job stocking toilet paper at Wal-Mart. That doesn't mean I'd approve of someone getting high before work, regardless of what their work is.

[Raw Shark]

I am NOT interested in arguing the relative merits of pot vs. booze. That completely misses my point which is that pot DOES cause harm in some people. It's not harmless and not entirely benign and it's foolish to hold it forth as such. Smoking it does increase the risk of lung disease. It's not a matter of tobaccoo vs. pot, it's a matter of not smoking anything vs. smoking pot. It's not that a buzzed drive is less dangerous than a drunk one, it's that a buzzed driver is less safe than a non-buzzed one. Saying it's less harmful than X does not make it harmless.

I humbly direct your attention to:

I question the often-heard meme that it is inherently "less harmful" than alcohol.

and:

Shit's not harmless

You seemed quite interested in debating the relative merits yesterday, and I have never claimed that it is objectively harmless.

If you legalize pot the use of it will go up. There will be adverse consequences that we will need to deal with. I find it an acceptable trade off because I think the adverse consequences to society as a whole will be less toxic than some of the adverse consequences of the "war on drugs" but I don't dodge the fact that there will be negatives to increased pot use.

This does not mean I'm in favor of complete abstinence. I do think mind-altering substances like alcohol and pot have a role in life. I am a hard-ass about responsible use. If you use don't drive, don't operate heavy machinery, and don't otherwise put yourself in a situation where you might hurt someone else. If you can't control your use then get help. If you're suffering adverse consequences from your use then either cut back or stop. Also realize that some occupations are NOT compatible with the use of these substances not because of laws but because of safety and you may have to at some point have to choose between a job and using your poison of choice. If you want to drive a bus or fly a plane for a living there's simply a lot of stuff out there you simply can't use and then go to work, whether a legal, prescription, or illegal drug. If you're a surgeon and you're on call I'm sorry, I can't approve of you downing a cocktail or smoking a joint when you may be called to a medical emergency (actually, some surgeons also abstain completely from caffeine as they believe it adversely affects their performance, impairment can take many forms).

I do hope that legalizing pot gets rid of the bullshit that having toked in the last three weeks can deny you a job stocking toilet paper at Wal-Mart.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean I'd approve of someone getting high before work, regardless of what their work is.

Even if there's no safety issue and the boss considers their performance acceptable?

[Broomstick]

That doesn't mean I'd approve of someone getting high before work, regardless of what their work is.

Even if there's no safety issue and the boss considers their performance acceptable?

Yes. Admittedly, that's a personal opinion, but I think if you're getting paid for your efforts you should be at maximum capability while at work. On the other hand, I'm not going to impose this view on the rest of society and if performance is minimally affected it's tolerable, that is, it's not necessarily a firing offense in my eyes. It will make me think less of the person, just as poor personal hygiene or inappropriate dress would make me think less of them.

[Raw Shark]

That doesn't mean I'd approve of someone getting high before work, regardless of what their work is.

Even if there's no safety issue and the boss considers their performance acceptable?

Yes. Admittedly, that's a personal opinion, but I think if you're getting paid for your efforts you should be at maximum capability while at work. On the other hand, I'm not going to impose this view on the rest of society and if performance is minimally affected it's tolerable, that is, it's not necessarily a firing offense in my eyes. It will make me think less of the person, just as poor personal hygiene or inappropriate dress would make me think less of them.

Lots of people half-ass their jobs for all kinds of reasons, including being a dumbass (as you seem to be well aware, judging by your recent shared experiences) and just feeling like it. Workplace shortcomings that fall short of firing offenses are what denial of raises and promotions are for.

[Broomstick]

You seemed quite interested in debating the relative merits yesterday, and I have never claimed that it is objectively harmless.

I question the notion that "less harmful than alcohol" somehow makes everything OK. It doesn't. Cutting the end of your finger off is less harmful than cutting your entire hand off, that doesn't mean it's OK or without harm.

[Raw Shark]

You seemed quite interested in debating the relative merits yesterday, and I have never claimed that it is objectively harmless.

I question the notion that "less harmful than alcohol" somehow makes everything OK. It doesn't. Cutting the end of your finger off is less harmful than cutting your entire hand off, that doesn't mean it's OK or without harm.

The distinction is important because if it is harmful to an equal or lesser degree than alcohol, and illegal while alcohol isn't, then the law is hypocritical.

[Broomstick]

Lots of people half-ass their jobs for all kinds of reasons, including just feeling like it. Workplace shortcomings that fall short of firing offenses are what denial of raises and promotions are for.

Agreed. Pot use prior to stocking toilet paper at Wal-Mart isn't a safety hazard that I can see, nor would I fire someone for it. However, I might not consider such a person for a job with more responsibility whereas the sober toilet roll stacker might be. I could say the same of a stocker intoxicated with alcohol yet still able to do the job. Bad attitude, chronic tardiness, and the like would also be much the same sort of negative in my eyes.

[Broomstick]

The distinction is important because if it is harmful to an equal or lesser degree than alcohol, and illegal while alcohol isn't, then the law is hypocritical.

Sure. Agreed on that. However, I disagree with using the term "safer" in regards to buzzed drivers vs. drunk drivers. "Less dangerous" might be better. Driving under the influence of pot is in no way acceptable to me.

[Raw Shark]

The distinction is important because if it is harmful to an equal or lesser degree than alcohol, and illegal while alcohol isn't, then the law is hypocritical.

Sure. Agreed on that. However, I disagree with using the term "safer" in regards to buzzed drivers vs. drunk drivers. "Less dangerous" might be better. Driving under the influence of pot is in no way acceptable to me.

The State of Colorado agrees with you: Driving stoned merits a full-blown DUI here, and our DUI penalties are not light.

[Ralin]

Sure. Agreed on that. However, I disagree with using the term "safer" in regards to buzzed drivers vs. drunk drivers. "Less dangerous" might be better. Driving under the influence of pot is in no way acceptable to me.

I always wonder why people bring this up. I'm pretty sure that no one is seriously advocating making it legal to drive while stoned.

[Spoonist]

... it would still be the lesser social ill because it has a greater tendency to make people calm and passive despite their emotional state before imbibing, whereas alcohol enhances whatever the user is already feeling (eg: anger). The illegality makes it difficult to study, of course, but based on extensive anecdotal evidence, I would wager a week's pay that more people beat their kids after drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels than after two dozen bong hits.

Don't know the strength of those two comparisons but I'd say while your assumption is correct it isn't that easy but rather much more complex.
First a confirmation, there have been studies on male undergrads and enlisted military where they were first given either alcohol or THC until "judgement impaired", then "provoked" in different ways, where the agressiveness was way higher for alcohol than THC. So it suggests there would be less THC-"bad drunks". However that was under normal circumstances.
Other studies have showed that when sleep deprived or under heavy stress, THC acts as a neurostimulator on violent aggression (ie the fight part of fight/flight). It also was tested by UK and US military (50's-70's) to see if it reduced a precieved reluctance to shoot at human targets - which it did with excellent results, however overall combat performance like hitting those targets and following orders was also reduced, so it was scrapped for other performance enhancing drugs which did both. (See how much drugs was employed by the wehrmacht in WWII for the reasons why they studied this).
Also studies on statistics from police in amsterdam (I don't remember when but I think it was early 2000's) show that THC affected arrestees was less likely to resist arrest but when they did they were more likely to do so violently and with a higher disregard for personal injury.
Also as a weird funfact; THC has been/is used as a performance enhancer by some martial artists in competetive situations, (but I don't think that comes from the evidence based side of the sport since I can think of many drugs which should have "better" effects).

Regarding the domestic abuse angle the reverse situation have studies that link the pre-adolescent THC use in combination with Childhood Trauma, with a much higher rate of psychotic symptoms in adults. Even when that is second hand, like a parent being a smoking THC user. Its thought to be causative due to the neurostimulation side I mentioned above.
Then domestic violence is along your observation, ie, higher among alcoholics than THC abusers (but highest among mixed substance abuse including THC+alcohol), but when compared with forensics of blunt force murder then THC is higher than its assumed %.

So it is very inconclusive. Yes you'd have less average violence, you'd have less angry drunks trying to pick fights etc, but you might end up with more folks going on rampages.
But here is the kicker, by forensic statistics when you mix alcohol abuse with THC abuse you get the worst from both. You get more aggressive behavior added to less caring about damage done/received.

Which means that yes if you replace alcohol with THC as the recreational drug of choice you'd reduce aggressive behavior in the general population. But in high risk groups with existing abusive and or psychotic parents you'd probable see an increase in the more violent offenses, like continued beatings even after the victim is down. While in mixed abuse populations (alcohol + THC) you'd see a smaller decline in numbers but some more extreme violence.

You can easily find studies and meta-studies on this by using google scholar. A tip is to not use THC as that abbreviation has multiple meanings but rather tetrahydrocannabinol.

[The Kernel]

I skimmed that study and couldn't find any controls. ie I couldn't find the comparison versus states that didn't implement MML laws. I'm guessing you have read it more thoroughly and can point me to where that comparison is?

Page 8 talks about controls and the methodology.

[The Kernel]

If someone buzzed is less likely to get into an accident it implies everyone should get high prior to turning on the car.

No that's not what it means at all, what are you a fucking moron? Read the goddamn study I linked--it means that people have a tendency to replace alcohol with pot which is inherently safer but that does not mean that people should be driving on it. Are you fucking three years old that you don't understand this?

It's like the drunk who drives home slowly because he knows he's fucked up - he's altering his behavior because he knows he's not functioning properly. I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

No one is arguing for that, take your strawman and shove it up your ass.

The study itself states that at least part of the effect is due to people using pot in lieu of alcohol. While pot might be less impairing than booze that doesn't mean it makes for safe drivers.

A point I myself made when I linked the study...are you illiterate or just dishonest?

The also mentions that use of marijuana leads to a reduction in distance perception, reaction time, and hand-eye coordination. While you can be a safe driver with impaired depth perception (we do, after all, let one-eyed people drive) the other two are of much more concern. Bravo that buzzed drivers increased their compensating behavior, but did they do that because they knew were under observation or because that's what they usually do when unobserved? Worse yet, when alcohol and pot are combined there was an additive effect on impairment, and I can't see how legalizing pot will reduce the odds of combining the two. I think the study does not address the custom aspect of this whole thing - people will go to bars to drink then drive home but I have to wonder if part of the reason pot is associated with fewer accidents is because the tokers do it at home and therefore do less driving.

Clearly you didn't understand the purpose of that paper. It had two goals:

1) Demonstrate through statistical data that pot legalization tends to reduce fatal traffic fatalities in general and alcohol related ones in particular.

2) Try to explain some of the reasons why for context.

It is NOT advocating that people get stoned and drive and neither is anyone in this thread. You are just being a dishonest cunt by trotting out this ridiculous strawman.

I don't buy the argument that getting stoned makes you a safer driver.

You fucking moron, NO ONE IS ADVOCATING FOR STONED PEOPLE DRIVING.

Impairing your judgement and/or physical performance and getting behind the wheel is just stupid. I don't care what's causing the impairment - alcohol, Rx drugs, OTC drugs, pot, attempting to text, being exhausted/sleepy.... It's irresponsible and potentially dangerous and a needless risk. I'd have to see more than just one study, preferably many that look at the issue from many angles, before I can accept that pot makes you a safer driver.

Way to miss the point completely.