Note, I am still for recreational legalization, both on personal liberty grounds and harm reduction grounds, but I would ask for cites on even the claim that in smoked for that it is “heath neutral.”
I conceded that there are many legal substances which pose a greater risk, but to say that habitual use is harmless is also quite a claim.
[
](Study: Pot Increases Heart Attack Risks - ABC News)
[
Well, I don’t think I’m gonna be smoking pot any time soon. I mean, I’m not anti-weed or anything, but I AM anti-text speak.
It’s not something I’ve thought about much, to be frank - but I suspect I will come to agree with you. Hell, the health-neutral claim would be a difficult one to justify for habitual use of chocolate, much less cannabis.
Actually it was tobacco smokers, pot smokers, or smokers of both. 3 categories. The interesting thing is that people who smoked both pot and tobacco had lower rates of bladder cancer than those who just smoked tobacco. The obvious unanswered question is how do these categories compare to people who don’t smoke anything- dunno, it wasn’t included.
I was more about demolishing the claim that pot smoke is ‘just like tobacco’. But you must admit, lowering the risk of cancer is ‘healthy’.
I stand by the doctor prescription comment. The point is that there is evidence cannabis is an effective treatment for a variety of conditions. I think that falls into the category of ‘healthy’. If you’d like a more specific category, ‘medicinal’, I am ok with that. Other drugs like heroin or meth are neither healthy nor medicinal.
If you read the OP’s question as, “should we recommend everyone smoke two joints per day because it is so healthy”, well I doubt that’s the answer. Carbon monoxide is a good point and presents a downside. Being stoned is both the point and a downside since stoned people are kind of impaired. OTOH, pot is a bronchialdialator, an analgesic and a hypnotic all in one which makes it nice to take a few tokes if you are training casually as a long distance runner. I used to do that before going on 90 or 120+ minute runs to train for a marathon. I succeeded in running the marathon and now, 7 years later, I am still rather fit and still signing up for races. But that’s just an anecdote, I’ll look for a cite on that for you later.
No, as I quoted them above, even the person who RAN the study said that is not what the results said, you are taking results out of context and applying meaning that isn’t there. If you want to make that claim I am going to ask for a cite.
Doctors prescribe Diamorphine (heroin) and Desoxyn (meth) are effective treatments for a variety of conditions. So by your argument they ARE “healthy”
It is quite obvious that if you are working from opinion and not fact, if you wish to debate please come back with cites.
What. The study showed that people who smoked pot had lower incidence of bladder cancer. The researchers said they didn’t understand the mechanism and so could not assert a cause-effect relationship. So what? They speculate on a mechanism:
Which could hardly be more vague, yes, but how do you interpret the results? The pot smokers seemed to get bladder cancer less often. It is one study.
I was not aware these were prescription drugs. For what conditions are they effective treatments? And what kind of results do we see when doctors prescribe heroin and meth?
And note I introduced the distinction of ‘medicinal’. Do I have to re-hash that?
Yes, I see you posted a link that purports to show a pot-cancer link. It introduces a till-then unknown cell type as the mechanism, one which was unknown to me till now. I’ll have to look into it some more before I can make up my mind on it.
I’m autistic and used to have really bad anxiety. Somehow pot smoking has essentially cured my anxiety. From anxiety level of 1 million to anxiety level of like 50, it changed my brain.
Heroin IS an effective painkiller. While it is not legal to use it for anything in the US, in other countries it is used legally for that, often for terminal illness like cancer. (When used legally it’s normally referred to as “diamorphine”) It is less sedating than morphine, which means in many instances the patient’s pain can be treated effectively without knocking the patient out or making them so mentally fuzzy as to interrupt their interactions with others. The downsides are that it needs to be administered more frequently than some other opioids, and the potential for abuse (and the usual side effects of any relative of opium, though to a lesser degree than some).
In the UK it’s used for severe physical trauma, post-surgical pain relief, and heart attack as well as terminal cases.
In some countries addicts can legally get a prescription for it as part of treatment for their addiction.
In regards to methamphetatime (which, like heroin, goes by another name when used for legitimate medical purposes, in this case Desoxyn), it is legally used in the treatment of attention deficient disorder and exogenous obesity (which means “patient is fat due to reasons beyond patient’s control”). It has also been used off-label for things like nacrcolepsy and severe depression. Do keep in mind that medicinal doses are much smaller that what abusers use to get high off this stuff. Does it work? Well, yes, but the downside is side effects and potential for abuse so it’s not usually the first drug of choice for those conditions, it’s an option for when the preferred choices don’t work for a particular patient.
I really have no answer to this, they made an observation and then made a wild guess on maybe why. It is NOT vague they are quite clear that they are making a guess.
But unless you are going to claim that smoking tobacco is “healthy” and thus smoking pot with tobacco or smoking pot is more healthy it really doesn’t matter.
They did they not include non-pot and non-tobacco smokers so we have no idea if pot smoking in this study group increased the risk over being a non-smoker.
If you are going to claim that habitual pot smoking is “healthy” this study does NOTHING to forward your claim.
No you claimed that if pot wasn’t healthy doctors wouldn’t prescribe it, which is an false claim.
Adding in your undefined ‘medicinal’ term is meaningless and does nothing to bolster your claim.
What they have is results that show a reduced incidence of bladder cancer among pot smokers. What they don’t have is an explanation as to the mechanism, for which they only provide (as you correctly point out) a (vague) guess. More below, but your cite about a cancer link is speculation about a mechanism without any incidence data whatsoever.
“Healthy” is a stronger, though somewhat undefined, claim. It appears smoking pot leads to a lower incidence of bladder cancer, even in individuals who are ingesting the known carcinogens in tobacco. To really claim it is “healthy”, we’d have to define that term and then see if the evidence about pot smoking fills in all the aspects of the definition.
Well, it does seem to show that smoking pot lowers the incidence of bladder cancer in people who also smoke tobacco, which you must admit is pretty interesting.
I admit it only shows one specific thing. As far as it goes it amounts to a point in the ‘healthy’ column, though it is not the whole show.
Also, it defeats an attempt by the case against. People were claiming that smoking pot was just like smoking tobacco, which, if true, would place pot smoking solidly in the ‘unhealthy’ column and that’d be the end of the debate. But that point didn’t stand, so the debate is still open.
As for carbon monoxide in pot smoke, that is a fair point but note that pot can be ingested without carbon monoxide. Using a vaporizer extracts the active ingredients in pot for consumption without any combustion of the material. Or it can be ingested in food. The thread title asks if ‘cannabis is healthy’ and not ‘pot smoking’, so I think this is fair.
No, my ‘medicinal’ distinction is valid. When people have some malady, they take something medicinal to remedy their condition. This is what doctors are doing when they prescribe pot (aside from the doctors who just don’t care if you want to get high and are happy to help you out).
‘Medicinal’ in the absence of a malady is a different case. If you’ve got heartburn, we could say Prilosec is healthy to take because it improves your health condition. If you don’t have heartburn, is Prilosec still ‘healthy’? I dunno. My unscientific guess is that you get the side effects without any benefit in that case and you might as well not bother.
Ingesting cannabis in the absence of a malady though, is that healthy? Lots and lots of people report an improvement in their sense of well-being or quality of life when they do so, so maybe it is. But, like cigarette smoking, what if it is just an unhealthy habit? If, for instance, it causes cancer, as your link claims it does, why then cannabis goes right into the ‘unhealthy’ column and that’s the end of the debate. But I’m afraid your study is utterly inconclusive:
cite?
Let’s just accept this at face value and move on…
Notice I’m bolding all the ‘can’ and ‘may’ words. There aren’t any specifics. It isn’t revealed under what circumstances cannabinoids trigger MDSCs- for instance, is it from casual potsmoking, or is it from dunking cells in cannabinoids in a petri dish? He doesn’t say. His conclusion is that is ‘may suppress the immune system’- ok, so maybe not, too. Inconclusive.
The researcher ADMITS he is just JAQing off. Did you read this before you posted it?
This is terribly strained language. After all his ‘may’ and ‘could’ talk, he just slaps ‘or other chemical agents such as cannabinoids’ onto the end of a clause beginning with ‘growth factors by cancer cells’. It is so poor it isn’t merely meaningless, it is dishonest. Note that nowhere to be found in your ‘study’ is any numerical measurement of cancer incidence wrt to cannabis consumption, along with a complete lack of detail about the study’s methodology. It is one long exercise in hand waving.
I spent half my life arguing with evangelicals. You can’t fool me, son. Do you have any conclusive evidence that actually demonstrates a health risk associated with the consumption of cannabis?
No, there was reduced incidence of bladder cancer compared to SMOKERS a known very “unhealthy” activity.
No this study showed there may be a correlation ONLY in individuals who are ingesting the known carcinogens in tobacco.
Strawman
Strawman, It may be much less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol when used as a recreational drug. That is meaningless as to if it is “healthy”
plus with the claim “cannabis is actually healthy” i
Sorry, your argument is so weak and baseless that you now have to resort to ad hominem attacks?
You are taking the fundies side in this debate, you are asking people to believe that recreational use of pot is “healthy” based on “faith”
You may want to look at the OP’s question
Unless you start to actually debate that, I am done wasting my time on this thread.
Right. We agree on this much.
Right. That is a point in favor of cannabis being healthy- people who are ingesting carcinogens show less incidence of cancer if they also consume cannabis. You are behaving as if I am presenting the study as saying more than that.
Meh. We apparently just don’t agree on the terms of the debate. How do we settle the question? If someone can show conclusively that pot is unhealthy, why then logically it can’t also be healthy and therefore the debate is over. Someone tried this move by claiming pot is just like tobacco. I showed that claim doesn’t hold water. And so the debate didn’t end on that point.
Nah. Evidence shows it medicinal, which counts as ‘healthy’ under the right circumstances. If people who don’t have a medical condition believe pot improves their quality of life, and if you (or someone else) simply cannot produce any evidence that proves it is UNhealthy, why can’t you then admit that the weight of evidence points to the conclusion: ‘healthy’?
You may ignore that one if you wish, but IME this hand-wavey kind of misdirection debate is exactly the kind of technique evangelicals resort to all the time. I can’t prove that by walking you through my past experiences though, so I’ll retract it. How’s that?
No, based on evidence. 1) It treats maladies. 2) It improves people’s quality of life. 3) There is no evidence that it is unhealthy. What further evidence would you like to see before you are convinced that it is healthy?
Right. ‘Maybe we should treat it more like vitamins than a recreational drug.’ Again, it improves people’s quality of life. A person’s quality of life very well may not need improving, in the same way someone who eats right doesn’t need to bother taking vitamins. But neither vitamins nor pot will hurt you, and they at least could help you, at least so far as the evidence presented in the debate thus far would lead us to believe.
I’d like to agree on the terms of the debate so I can quit talking about that aspect and move into more examination of evidence. For starters:
At least come back with new straw man augments please.
I am not going to argue a position I don’t hold.
Thanks for the great debate (rimshot) on the issue, sorry for not participating more. I am considering running on a political platform where cannabis is one of the front issue. The discussion here is ment to help me form my opinion based on rational discourse. So far I’m thankful for the contributions.
For me I think “Try 2B Comprehensive” has left the strongest impression. I can follow his reasoning and it makes a lot of sense to me. But I am still not convinced. For example, cannabis increases the risk of car accidents. Not as much as alcohol, but more than vitamins. It also seems to damage the development of some cognitive functions if used heavily while under age. Obviously a huge problem with alcohol, but once again not with vitamins.
So what in your minds would be the “ultimate” policy regarding cannabis, if you wanted to maximise gain and minimize harm on a national scale?
I’d prefer it be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. People get the drinks they like, they don’t go blind, and for the most part it stays in the hands of the loony old adults. (Not that the kids are any better at handling it.) It’s not perfect, people get hurt, but I think it beats prohibition.
Personally, I’d like to see it treated as alcohol: off limits to kids, adults can use it but there are penalties for using it irresponsibility. Treatment for those who can’t handle it responsibly should be easily available (though too often it isn’t)
I also think our laws regarding alcohol could some tweaking, but that’s my general opinion.
I have a stoner conspiracy theorist friend on Facebook. Weed destroys cancer, apparently:
Most of it’s ominous expose style documentary YouTube videos, but I was wondering if anyone who knows what they’re talking about would comment on this apparently commonly known fact which is yet insidiously hidden by big pharma.
I can only say that “big pharma” have failed horribly if that is what they are trying to do. Not only did I know cannabis have positive effects in cancer treatment, but I thought that was widely accepted.
“Big Pharma” will control pot if it becomes legal. Just like they control booze, where 20 companies have 90% of the market, tobacco, where it is controlled by three companies. It will be the Diageo’s that control most of it and they will make you think it is a small guy making a premium brand just like Bulleit or Cîroc. Just like tobacco, which is trivial to grow the tax laws will limit your ability to do so.
And the world will be better for it.
However “cannabis have positive effects in cancer treatment” is widely accepted like distancing healing or magical shaken water or echinacea. Outside of nausea it does not have double blind studies to show that it does anything…if it did “Big Pharma” would be on top of it like crazy.
Just look at Vyvanse, it is just Dextroamphetamine with a “twist” but not only are they raking in the cash with super expensive new drug they also cornered the Dextroamphetamine manufacturing market, drove everyone else out of business then jacked up the price on what was a dirt cheap, safe drug (not that I would call dexies “Healthy”)
“Safety” is not what schedules a drug, politics does…and as a person who takes perscribed schedule II drugs let me tell you it is a real pain.
Just in case you live in a state that does not allow medical pot, or one recreational pot, let me tell you something. During prohibition you could get a some doctors to prescribe you a LOT of whiskey…even though most people would agree it is not “healthy” unless they are trying to justify their own habits.
I have lived in all three costal western states and I am pro-legalization (recreation) and I have lots of friends who smoke, and I run in circles where most people smoke. I don’t judge nor care if people do smoke as long as I have fresh air. However the most common statement anyone says to me after I very kindly decline the pipe is, “don’t worry it is medical marijuana”. Like that would change my decision 
This type of thing has been going on forever and it will go on but it makes me mad because it gives the anti-recreational people lots of ammo and also produces a stigma for those who could probably do a lot better in life if they were allowed to get high. Some anti’s think that if people are willing to lie for it, it must be a dangerous and addictive drug.
IMHO using the “it saves all the things!!!” argument which is such a obvious sign that someone is selling you snake oil is counter productive. If Try2, had he said (So it may not be healthy but look, the risk is lower than smoking and drinking yet we spend all this bla bla bla) argument I would have no issue with his claims. But claiming it is like vitamins (which in food are great but useless and/harmful in pill form for most people) and actually “good” is a stretch. There are studies on both sides, and when you see answers coming back on both sides often the item you are studying is most likely neither a cause nor an effect.
But hey…consumers spend more out of pocket on placibo’s then they do on prescription meds so maybe I am completely wrong on this one.
:dubious: Ok. I believe we can all agree being stoned decreases nausea, increases appetite and overall creates a sensation of euphoria and ease despite a stressful period in a human beings life.
Does it CURE cancer?