Based on the recent marijuana legalization thread, I once again find myself wondering about this. As I stated in that thread, whenever a marijuana discussion pops up, people start listing multiple, conflicting studies. I’m curious if there have been any large-scale, long-term, peer-reviewed and generally-accepted-as-correct studies into whether or not marijuana is harmful?
If there have been studies which indicated that it is in some way harmful, how harmful is it compared to other products, whether they are home-grown, OTC, prescription, or banned?
Is MJ comparable to, say, water (drink too much and you can die from an electrolyte imbalance)? Alcohol (drink too much life-long and maybe you need a liver; drink a large, OTC container of it in one evening and end up in the hospital and maybe dead)? Tobacco (smoke it for a lifetime and maybe end up dead)? Cocaine (snort it once and maybe end up dead)?
Also, what specific, measurable effect does it have on one’s ability to drive, operate heavy machinery, react to startling situations or show up for work on time Monday morning?
Since you point out the tendency for discussions on this subject to tend to bring up conflicting studies (of which there is no shortage, and there are certainly conflicting agendas behind many of them), I’ll just throw in my anecdotal 2 cents.
I’ve known a lot of heavy marijuana users. Most of them developed a smoker’s cough smoking less marijuana than the average cigarette smoker would consume tobacco. I would infer that that would indicate a significantly increased risk of lung disease.
In regard to operating machinery/driving/etc, I’ve been a passenger with folks who were stoned. IMO, they might as well have been moderately intoxicated. They’re often fidgety, easily distracted, fussing around for a water bottle or some snack food, etc. This hasn’t been something I’ve encountered in nearly ten years (when I worked for DEA, people were generally polite enough not to burn in my presence, and now most folks I know have “outgrown” it).
In some jurisdictions, you can be charged with DUI/DWAI for driving stoned (for good reason, IMHO).
It’s also going to depend on how you take it. Smoking anything is going to cause lung damage (though not necessarily as much as tobacco), but there are a number of other ways of taking marijuana that wouldn’t have that issue (though may have others).
I have been a passenger in cars where the driver was stoned, and in cars where the driver was high on booze. Stoned drivers never exceeded the speed limit. They were happy driving under the speed limit. Booze drivers seemed to always drive faster than their reactions.
I have worked with people that smoked a joint in the evening and were fine the next day at work. I would prefer working with them rather than a boozer with a hangover.
Granted not a scientific finding, but accurate in my experience.
Of course it’s harmful; how could you doubt it? But it is probably less harmful than alcohol, certainly much less harmful than tobacco and infinitely less harmful than long years in prison.
The biggest obstacle to having a clear answer to this question via studies conducted with the benefit of modern medical and scientific knowledge is that in the early 1970’s marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 narcotic in the US and many other countries followed this lead imposing their own strict prohibitions. It has been nearly impossible for most legitimate scientific research to be conducted since that time.
Up until then there were quite a few studies that all pretty much concluded it is a relatively benign drug that poses no serious threats to health or society. Here are a few of them. The availability of such studies drops off significantly after the 1970 controlled substances act was passed.
1944 US - The LaGuardia Committee Report Mayor’s Committee on Marihuana, The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York commissioned by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, written by the New York Academy of Medicine, and published by the City of New York in 1944
It had been classified as a drug for some time but it was made a schedule 1 narcotic in 1970, effectively eliminating any legal use including almost all medical research.
Very interesting Crazyhorse. Thanks for bring those reports to life. But I am confused. With all the positive reports on the weed, how did it get such a bad rap?
The short answer is probably “politics”. It’s GQ so we can’t really get into the what They don’t want you to know theories. There probably isn’t a specific cite and I’m too lazy to build my own case so I’ll just say in my opinion, it was politically expedient for the administration in power in 1970 to do so. Public opinion was influenced by movies like Reefer Madness and misinformed, unfounded claims in the media and pop culture led to an irrational view of the facts by many despite the existence of these or any other studies.
It has remained listed under schedule 1 for 40 years since, in sort of a vicious circle. In order to reclassify it under schedule 2, the DEA insists that there needs to be more evidence of medical value. In order to obtain more evidence of medical value, studies would need to be conducted, but the DEA won’t allow it to be possessed for studies because… it is a schedule 1 narcotic and has no medical value. :smack:
That argument has been going around in an endless loop for 40 years. Here is a good LA Times article on the issue.
I’ll have to dig up the cites (if I even can, I’ll try), but I recall seeing a study that says that marijuana has about the same addiction rate as alcohol – that is, the same number of people become dependent on it due to brain chemistry, genetics, life situation, or whatever the reason. Being addicted to alcohol makes you an alcoholic – I don’t imagine the effects of chronic marijuana use are necessarily prettier. (Of course, I’ve also seen statistics that place cocaine and heroin addictions at only slightly 5-10% higher addiction rates than alcohol – though certainly the effects of addiction vary wildly)
In addition, if you’re smoking it as a joint (meaning, instead of taking the psychoactive component in pill form), you are inhaling burning smoke. This is not good for you. At all. It will cause tissue damage.
I’m certainly for legalizing it, but I don’t think the people who are trying so hard to convince everyone that it cures cancer, will resurrect your miscarried baby, and bring about world peace are really helping matters. It’s at best as harmless as inhaling smoke is ever going to be, and at worst as damaging as alcohol.
Pill form? I believe the more common form would be brownies. :dubious: There are also chocolate bars, candies, tinctures, oils, and beverages. Not to mention vaporizers.
That’s so in the same sense that at best caffeine can scald your mouth. If you think caffeine equals boiling coffee, then I suppose it’s the case.
I believe pill form is the legally distributed form of “medical marijuana” no? THC pills in California? I could be completely wrong, I’m legitimately asking.
Sorry, I’ll admit I jumped the gun a bit there, you’re right.
It is well known at least anecdotally that it is psychologically addictive for some, as can be chocolate, coffee, television, overeating, etc. but I’ve never run across a legitimate study that concluded it is chemically addictive at all - much less anywhere remotely in the same ballpark as alcohol addiction. I would be interested to see some cites if you find them. The costs of alcoholism to individuals and society are very well known and researched, so that will be a difficult argument for you to win unless more research into marijuana is permitted.
However, as mentioned in the Times article I linked:
So at least there is a chance there might be some useful studies in that area that are newer than 1972. And the potency and overall chemical makeup of the plant has evolved over the past 4 decades so we are working with a different set of variables today than they were 40 years ago.
Morphine and cocaine are well proven to be very chemically addictive and they are still considered to have medical benefits and are listed under schedule 2. Alcohol and nicotine are likewise known to be extremely chemically addictive and they are legal and regulated. Even if marijuana were chemically addictive too, that wouldn’t disqualify it from being reclassified as a schedule 2 drug. But it remains at the top of the list of prohibited substances despite overwhelming evidence and testimony from medical authorities that it does appear to have at least enough medical value to warrant further research.
Breathing any smoke isn’t necessarily as bad for you as breathing tobacco smoke. Here is a 1975 studyof the effect of marijuana smoke on asthma - it had an immediate beneficial effect on the lungs of asthmatics in some circumstances. It is an expectorant. When you cough stuff up after smoking it, that stuff is more than just the marijuana residue. Tobacco for example restricts bronchial passages and marijuana smoke dilates them. It may actually help clean out the lungs of a tobacco smoker or pollution breather to have an occasional hit of marijuana smoke. There again, if there could be modern, scientific studies on the subject knowing what we know today about smoking related illnesses and cancer, we might learn your theory is correct, or we might discover that it isn’t.
Again, your best and worst case theories are both unproven for lack of conclusive study on the questions. But the scant evidence that does exist contradicts both of them.
im sorry im stupid ill bite myself im really sorry i never should have gone into gq im stupid im so sorry how do you want me to hurt mys3elf for being stupid ive already bitten myself im so so sorry
I would have settled for agreement that we just don’t know the GQ facts because there isn’t enough current research.
That bite looks painful. If you live somewhere with medical marijuana, they make a cannabis salve that is supposed to reduce the pain and inflammation when applied topically.
I’m sorry everybody, especially mods. I freaked out again :(. I really need to remember not to do GQ or GD, at least not when I’m running a fever and not thinking clearly since it makes me lapse into my old panic attack prone self.
I found my original cite, and it’s a terrible cite, it was actually an opinion piece and I remembered it differently. Sorry.
And no, the bite isn’t really painful at all, I’ve done worse at least.
