Legalizing of Marijuana Raises Health Concerns (NY Times)

[The Kernel]

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.

Funny how I said EXACTLY THAT. Who do you think you are arguing against here?

If you legalize pot the use of it will go up.

Duh, the linked study addresses that point.

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.

Actually if pot is a replacement for alcohol it is very likely that the net impact will be positive (not because pot is benign but because it is significantly less harmful than alcohol).

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).

Do you see me or anyone arguing with changing the DUI laws? Just because pot is legal doesn't mean you can use it on the job anymore than you can use alcohol at work.

Heck if I were to take some of my prescription medication before getting behind the wheel I could be charged with a DUI as well. This is no secret. Legality of a substance has no practical effect on DUI laws.

[Raw Shark]

... 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. [snip]

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.

Very interesting, thanks.

[The Kernel]

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.

I'm still not sure what the point you are making is. The study in question didn't make this classification, the FDA did.

[General Zod]

I question the notion that "less harmful than alcohol" somehow makes everything OK. It doesn't.

So do you want to explain why marijuana should be considered as more harmful than alcohol and many opiates? Or are you going to ignore the point again so you can get up on the pedestal?

[PainRack]

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.

I'm still not sure what the point you are making is. The study in question didn't make this classification, the FDA did.

Stop being fixated about the argument regarding schedule II or III. My singular point was that the study has flaws because it included spurious reports about what are very safe drugs.

If your argument was that marijuana was safer compared to warfarin and etc, then so be it. But the comparison you brought up didn't argue that, isn't it?

[The Kernel]

Stop being fixated about the argument regarding schedule II or III. My singular point was that the study has flaws because it included spurious reports about what are very safe drugs.

You are missing my point entirely. The data for death attribution came from the FDA directly--they keep these records not the study authors.

If your argument was that marijuana was safer compared to warfarin and etc, then so be it. But the comparison you brought up didn't argue that, isn't it?

What the fuck are you prattling on about? Does this nonsense have a point?

[Broomstick]

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.

I did read the study. Apparently you are ass-hurt that I didn't see the light immediately and hail you as a genius.

ONE study does not conclusively prove anything. Results need to be reproduced before being accepted as scientifically valid. Got any other studies showing the same results, or just this one?

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?

When I restate something you did, in other words, agree with you on a particular point, you accuse me of being either illiterate or dishonest? What the fuck is your problem?

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

Are there any other studies confirming these results, or not?

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

Were any further studies done to try to confirm or falsify those hypotheses? Did they ever address my rather simple question of whether location of imbibing had any effect on the results (that is, smoking pot at home vs. going to a bar to drink, meaning drinkers were driving more, and more likely to drive impaired)?

[Broomstick]

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.

Actually if pot is a replacement for alcohol it is very likely that the net impact will be positive (not because pot is benign but because it is significantly less harmful than alcohol).

Please address the points brought up in Spoonist's post regarding that when someone under the influence of pot, or under certain conditions such as being sleep deprieved, that if they do become violent it may be just as violent or more so than when under the influence of alcohol.

Please address the potential effects mentioned in Spoonist's post of people who use BOTH pot and booze and the same time. Even if some people will substitute one for the other that doesn't mean all will do so.

[The Kernel]

Please address the points brought up in Spoonist's post regarding that when someone under the influence of pot, or under certain conditions such as being sleep deprieved, that if they do become violent it may be just as violent or more so than when under the influence of alcohol.

Please address the potential effects mentioned in Spoonist's post of people who use BOTH pot and booze and the same time. Even if some people will substitute one for the other that doesn't mean all will do so.

I already did moron. For someone who claims they are reading the material I linked you have extremely poor reading comprehension.

2.3. The relationship between marijuana and alcohol consumption

The results discussed in the previous section have different policy implications depending
upon whether marijuana and alcohol are substitutes or complements. If they are complements,
then MMLs could lead to more traffic fatalities as the consumption of marijuana and alcohol
increase. If they are substitutes, then MMLs could lead to fewer traffic fatalities as alcohol
consumption decreases.

A consensus has not been reached with regard to the relationship between marijuana and
alcohol consumption. A number of studies have found evidence of complementarity between
marijuana and alcohol (Pacula 1998; Farrelly et al. 1999; Williams et al. 2004; Yörük and Yörük 2011). Others, however, lend support to the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are
substitutes. For instance, Chaloupka and Laixuthai (1997) and Saffer and Chaloupka (1999)
found that marijuana decriminalization led to decreased alcohol consumption, while DiNardo
and Lemieux (2001) found that increases in the minimum legal drinking age were positively
associated with the use of marijuana.

Two recent studies used a regression discontinuity approach to examine the effect of the
minimum legal drinking age on marijuana use, but came to different conclusions. Crost and
Guerrero (2011) concluded that alcohol and marijuana were substitutes, while Yörük and Yörük
(2011) concluded that they were complements. However, according to Yörük and Yörük (2011),
approximately 75 percent of NLSY97 respondents between the ages of 19 and 22 smoked
marijuana in the past month. This figure is inconsistent with evidence on marijuana use by
young adults available from other studies.

Next time read the fucking link if you want to comment on it.

[The Kernel]

I did read the study. Apparently you are ass-hurt that I didn't see the light immediately and hail you as a genius.

ONE study does not conclusively prove anything. Results need to be reproduced before being accepted as scientifically valid. Got any other studies showing the same results, or just this one?

Idiot, the paper linked is a collection of a variety of other statistical sources not a bunch of primary research. Good god you really are completely illiterate aren't you?

When I restate something you did, in other words, agree with you on a particular point, you accuse me of being either illiterate or dishonest? What the fuck is your problem?

So you brought it up for no reason other than to hear the sound of your own voice?

Are there any other studies confirming these results, or not?

None that you are capable of reading and comprehending. For those that can though there is a series of footnotes citing the relevant studies in the paper I linked.

Were any further studies done to try to confirm or falsify those hypotheses? Did they ever address my rather simple question of whether location of imbibing had any effect on the results (that is, smoking pot at home vs. going to a bar to drink, meaning drinkers were driving more, and more likely to drive impaired)?

Clearly you fail understanding basic burden of proof. I don't have to disprove some wild theory you have, it's up to YOU to support it. What are you twelve?

[Broomstick]

YOU proposed that high drivers are somehow "safer" than drunk drivers. YOU prove it.

YOU proposed that legalizing marijuana use reduces traffic accidents. YOU prove it.

When someone asks questions about your proof you are the one acting butt-hurt rather than attempting to defend your position.

[Broomstick]

Idiot, the paper linked is a collection of a variety of other statistical sources not a bunch of primary research. Good god you really are completely illiterate aren't you?

So... do other statisticians agree with their results or not? "I have statistics!" by itself is not scientific proof. It is entirely legitmate to ask questions about how those statistics were derived, and if the same results are seen elsewhere. For example, did the Netherlands see a dip in traffic fatalities after allow recreational use of pot? Are these results universal or just seen in Colorado? If yes you might actually have an argument. If no, then how is Colorado different than other places?

When I restate something you did, in other words, agree with you on a particular point, you accuse me of being either illiterate or dishonest? What the fuck is your problem?

So you brought it up for no reason other than to hear the sound of your own voice?

Let me get this straight... you have a problem with me agreeing with one of your points? Seriously?

Are there any other studies confirming these results, or not?

None that you are capable of reading and comprehending. For those that can though there is a series of footnotes citing the relevant studies in the paper I linked.

Did you actually read any of those yourself, or did you just copy and paste the footnotes?

Were any further studies done to try to confirm or falsify those hypotheses? Did they ever address my rather simple question of whether location of imbibing had any effect on the results (that is, smoking pot at home vs. going to a bar to drink, meaning drinkers were driving more, and more likely to drive impaired)?

Clearly you fail understanding basic burden of proof. I don't have to disprove some wild theory you have, it's up to YOU to support it. What are you twelve?

None of what you quote are theories. They are questions that are entirely legitimate to ask in regards to a paper such as you chose to support your position. Stop having a tantrum and answer them.

[PainRack]

I'm still not sure what the point you are making is. The study in question didn't make this classification, the FDA did.

Are you dumb? You attempted to suggest that marijuana is less harmful than other common prescription drugs, by quoting a study that obtained information from the VEERs database about drug ADR.

There are some major flaws in that argument.

1. The reports of death/injuries in comparison is a SPURIOUS comparison, made by simply collating data from the database without any knowledge whatsoever of the actual mechanism and how the drug causes harm. And itself has no statistical power, because actual comparison would include number of people using the drug vs harm to make it a valid comparison. Its one of the reasons why paracetemol is a SAFE drug despite the fact that it is one of the leading causes of acute liver failure, because the huge number of people using the drug vs limited cases, in comparison to other drugs.

2. This somehow overrides ACTUAL studies that marijuana use may or may not have correlation to schizophrenia as well as the problematic chemical/lab causation of cancer and lung disease(which itself is dodgy due to the studies of human epidemology showing no correlation between marijuana use and lung cancer).


I say this again. Your study doesn't prove your case, it simply shows that less harm has been associated with the use of marijuana than with other drugs.

Now, the pharmacokinetics does suggest that THC itself is a safe drug, hard to OD upon with a hard to reach toxic level as opposed to its therapeutic level. The existing data doesn't show that it has any major renal or liver impairment and is safe to use. Any risk is regarding long term use, with links to schizophrenia and potential cause of lung disease/cancer due to tar, smoke, chemicals. In comparison to smoking, its most likely has much less effects.

The questions about legalisation and OTC use for recreation is a societal issue and separate from my actual discussion point though, which is an actual discussion about the drug risks and safety.

If you wish to talk purely about legalisation or that other legal drugs are less harmful, that's YOUR balliwick. Not mine.

[PainRack]

Reposted for better clarity/clearing up of English.

I'm still not sure what the point you are making is. The study in question didn't make this classification, the FDA did.

Are you dumb? You attempted to suggest that marijuana is less harmful than other common prescription drugs, by quoting a study that obtained information from the VEERs database about drug ADR.

There are some major flaws in that argument.

1. The reports of death/injuries in comparison is a SPURIOUS comparison, made by simply collating data from the database without any knowledge whatsoever of the actual mechanism and how the drug causes harm. And itself has no statistical power, because actual comparison would include number of people using the drug vs harm to make it a valid comparison. Its one of the reasons why paracetemol is a SAFE drug despite the fact that it is one of the leading causes of acute liver failure.

2. This somehow overrides ACTUAL studies that marijuana use may or may not have correlation to schizophrenia as well as the problematic chemical/lab causation of cancer and lung disease(which itself is dodgy due to the studies of human epidemology showing no correlation between marijuana use and lung cancer).


I say this again. Your study doesn't prove your case, it simply shows that less harm has been associated with the use of marijuana than with other drugs.

Now, the pharmacokinetics does suggest that THC itself is a safe drug, hard to OD upon with a hard to reach toxic level as opposed to its therapeutic level. The existing data doesn't show that it has any major renal or liver impairment and is safe to use. Any risk is regarding long term use, with links to schizophrenia and potential cause of lung disease/cancer due to tar, smoke, chemicals. In comparison to smoking, its most likely has much less effects.

The questions about legalisation and OTC use for recreation is a societal issue and separate from my actual discussion point though, which is an actual discussion about the drug risks and safety.
Hell, let's talk about odansteron. The drug is now suspected of causing cardiac abnormalities, with the latest drug safety insert mandating a dose limit and forbidding the use of bolus administration. It is almost certain however, that a huge majority of the case reports that was found in the report has nothing to do with this problem. Indeed, given that the actual FDA advisory states that no deaths has been associated with this safety issue, this suggests that all of the drug associated death in the VEERs system didn't show this problem.
And not to support Broomstick other points, it does support her concern that marijuana has unknown safety risks that would show up after legalisation prompted increased use.

If you wish to talk purely about legalisation or that other legal drugs like alcohol/tobacco are less harmful, that's YOUR balliwick. Not mine.

[Spoonist]

Please address the points brought up in Spoonist's post regarding that when someone under the influence of pot, or under certain conditions such as being sleep deprieved, that if they do become violent it may be just as violent or more so than when under the influence of alcohol.

Some notes.
1) The same reason that makes a THC addict less dangerous when DUI than alcohol makes it clear that when violent someone on THC is much more capable to inflict damage than someone drunk on alcohol. (Bum fights between severe alcoholics are usually very "ineffective" unless blades or firearms are involved).
2) By police reports we can see that THC addicts are less predictable when and if they will be violent. Bad drunks picking fights are usually obvious and can thus be handled, while THC addicts can go from calm to violent very quickly when cornered, arrested or similar. (Again fight/flight).
3) But overall there would be much less violence total. This because one of the long term effects of THC use is lack of initiative/motivation. (Thought to be related to affects on the frontal lobe). This in contrast to alcoholics who are very determined but lack focus. So less overall confrontation. (Also alcoholics lose the cognitive ability to see the action-cause-effect releationship leading to them not being able to understand why someone is pissed even though you just did X, and that confusion begets violence just like dementia does).
4) Lots of drugs have withdrawal symptoms which increase the aggression and/or violence of the abuser. But when compared with the other recreational drugs, THC has a very mild effect (while of course higher than sober/clean people).
5) The funding for the early research came from the military since a lot of soldiers would "self medicate" using THC and the end result was some really bad shit. Both from a morale/discipline perspective but most importantly misdirected violence. (ie not versus enemy combatants) See Vietnam for the obvious example.
6) But if we would really be serious about drugs and violence/domestic abuse or somesuch then we should probably go for legalizing opiates and 'crack' down on cokaine. Cokaine and its derivates are linked not only with violent aggression, like homocides, it is also very much overrepresented among murder victims, especially among those killed with firearms. Also cokaine and derivates are linked to much more mixed abuse than most other recreational drugs. While if we include non recreational drugs then steroids is the number one killer, especially when mixed with cokaine and or alcohol intake. That would be were I would spend money/resources/legislation if I wanted a decrease in violence/domestic abuse, but given the US football culture that won't happen.

Don't we have a social worker or two on the board? They should be able to give some insight into these kinds of behaviors.

Please address the potential effects mentioned in Spoonist's post of people who use BOTH pot and booze and the same time. Even if some people will substitute one for the other that doesn't mean all will do so.

From the statistics given in Kernel's links it seems that about a third of MML would continue drinking like before just adding THC, about a third would lower their alcohol intake, and about a third would replace most of their alcohol intake with THC. But those numbers are very rough, it changes over time and differs among the states as given and some don't collect the data.
So most would continue with both but lower the amount of alcohol when aiming to "get intoxicated".

And I don't get what Kernel's issue is with your posts in this topic either. He is off on a rant of some sort.

[Broomstick]

And I don't get what Kernel's issue is with your posts in this topic either. He is off on a rant of some sort.

I don't get it either, it seems all out of proportion to things. I've been resisting the urge to ask him "What are you smokin'?"