If something is so toxic that it is cirtain to harm anyone who uses it, I can see why outlawing it would seem to be a sensible solution. I am mystified as to why so many people seem to think that outlawing things should be the *default position/i].
"Some people are taking up the consumption of a substance that they say makes them feel good. And… some users are actually (brace yourself) acting silly."
“It makes people feel good!? How alarming! It might be dangerous; it might have harmful side effects. We’d better outlaw it immediately. We’ll study it. Maybe someday, years from now, if it can be proved that it’s completely safe, we’ll lift the ban. Unless, of course, important segments of our economy have come to depend on its continued illegality…”
Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age.
Sample and duration: 1,318 people & 12 years.
Abstract Extract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate possible adverse effects of cannabis use on cognitive decline after 12 years in persons under age 65 years.
…[snip]…
The authors conclude that over long time periods, in persons under age 65 years, cognitive decline occurs in all age groups. This decline is closely associated with aging and educational level but does not appear to be associated with cannabis use.
Good point. Not EVERY medication, of course. Some address the cause of illness, some the symptoms. MJ might be considered equivalent to aspirin if only the symptoms are alleviated. Aspirin isn’t a cure for anything that I know of, although it is said to reduce the chance of heart attacks with regular & mild doses.
But what I meant was: Does MJ make the user feel better just because they think it is doing something (a mental perception, the placebo effect) or does it actually alter the body’s chemistry (a physical effect)? If it is only a placebo, then it will fail if the user doesn’t believe it will work; if a true chemical or physical one, it should work for all.
If the proponents of medical MJ have solid evidence that this is a useful drug equivalent to other, legal, drugs, and is not just an self-delusion or wishful thinking, they have a stronger case for legalization.
It should not be up to the proponents to make a case for legalization. It should be up to the other side to disprove the evidence that marijana is not harmful enough to justify continuing the ban. Marijuana was outlawed decades ago on the basis of misinformation, hysteria, racism, and outright lies. We know better now. We have known better for a long time. We know that it is not only far less harmful than the hard drugs our laws claim it’s equivlent to (heroin, cocaine, etc) – it’s also significantly less harmful than either of our two main legal recreational substances (tobacco and alcohol).
I agree with you 100%. Many others do, too. The ones that don’t are the legislators. Status quo is powerful force and so is ignorance. Just because a law is wrong, was passed based on wrong data, or no longer pertains doesn’t cause it to be repealed. So the more ammunition the repealers have, the better off the cause is.
And new evidence that MJ is benign isn’t as strong as evidence that it is beneficial. Think of what would happen if someone discovered that a toke a day cured lung cancer! Contrast that to the situation if 50 good studies were done that proved it did no harm at all. Which would be more likely to influence a legislator’s vote for change?
MelCthefirst, the results of that fertility study, if valid, could be thought of as a curse or a blessing. MJ is a partially-effective contraceptive! A plus!
Or: MJ hurts your pregnancy chances! A minus!
In either case, I don’t think the decision to use it or not should be up to anyone but the individual. (Maybe that’s what you are saying, I can’t tell.)
As I have already said, I think those who want to legalize it should examine closely the countries that have already legalized and find out all the pros and cons of having gone down that road. Legislaters don’t do enough of this kind of benchmarking.
The fertility research indicates that we don’t know everything about MJ, we are still learning. I personally have seen many people stumble big time from using it regularly. I think legalizing it would make it more readily available and possibly push the price down - although it is already very cheap here. I’m convinced that more people would take up smoking it, increasing the number of people who screw up their lives from smoking it.
Until you have lived up close to someone who smokes regularly and you don’t, you cannot appreciate the changes in behaviour for the worst.
Accepted by whom? Stoners? Wishful thinkers? Not science, unless you can point to some studies I know not about.
If you’re going to get behind a legislative push for legalization, don’t you want something better than “Hey, Dude, it makes me feel, like, awwwrat, OK?”*
*That’s “awwwrat” as taught to me by Ronnie Eckstine. Those were the days.
And we never will, about any substance. Science doesn’t ever terminate.
I’ve already linked to long-term studies showing that pot use doesn’t cause brain damage or further the regular age-related cognitive decline, doesn’t impair lung function and doesn’t increase the risk of auto accidents.
Besides, like I’ve always said, who says one has to smoke it?
And I have seen people who don’t. Again, where does this get us?
Holland has de facto decriminalized pot for 28 years now. Their per-capita consumption is lower than the US, despite pot being cheaper and readily available.
Yes but this doesn’t tell us much - other than that consumption is lower than the US. Has it increased at a faster rate in Holland than in a less tolerant country? What effects, if any, have there been on communities? What does the person in the street think about the open use of it? Is there a corelation between open use of MJ and use of other drugs? etc
Hello!! I believe you’re the one who suggested that if marijuana is legalized, use would increase. In Holland, where personal use is liberally tolerated, they use it less than the US where all recreational aspects of pot are taboo & illegal.
*Apparently, general national trends in cannabis use are relatively independent of cannabis policy. To date, cannabis use in the Netherlands takes a middle position within the European Union. Apparently most cannabis use is experimental and recreational. The vast majority quits using cannabis after some time. Only a very small proportion of current cannabis users is in treatment. From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.
The vast majority of cannabis users has never tried hard drugs. Moreover, with regard to the problematic use of opiates and drug related health problems, the Netherlands ranks relatively low within the European Union. *
Thanks, Mr2001, for those links. If indeed hard evidence is accumulating towards the practical and medicinal use of canibinols in whatever form, that is a good thing if you are a proponent of legalization.
However, I noticed that all those links are pages from the same, pro-marijuana advocacy site, perhaps not an unbiased list of studies. I doubt if they would list a study that didn’t support their view.
Beyond this, I’d better leave the analysis and deeper research to those more medically inclined and with more interest, and more available time.
I would like to suggest to any of the SDSAB bunch that are listening that this might be a good topic for a Staff Report: "Is marijuana truly effective for any medical purpose or just wishful thinking?"
Yes, but in the same country. Holland may have had less use than the US before it was semi-decriminalized and increased since then, but still be less than the US.
The article on Holland was interesting. The cultural differences are also interesting - have you come across any studies in the US on attitudes towards MJ?
There is no correlation between illegal rates of use in the US and legal rates of use in Holland. We need to look at the increase in use within Holland since legal conditions changed and if this is significant - what happens in the US is irrelevant for this purpose.
