What will Trump Admin do about marijuana?

[LordKiran]

Marijuana smoke is about equally harmful to lungs as tobacco smoke.

Pretty safe then, since a "normal" user only inhales a tiny fraction of the amount of smoke that a typical tobacco smoker inhales.

All I'm saying is let's not mislead people and insinuate that pot is some kind of miracle drug that's super good for you when you inhale it. I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as tobacco but even so.

 

[TV and credit cards]

All I'm saying is let's not mislead people and insinuate that pot is some kind of miracle drug that's super good for you when you inhale it. I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as tobacco but even so.

Obesity rates among marijuana smokers (a drug that gives you the munchies) are much lower than that of nonsmokers.
Get high. Get the munchies. Loose weight. Come on man. What's a bud have to do to qualify as a miracle in this joint?

 

[Elixir]

Pretty safe then, since a "normal" user only inhales a tiny fraction of the amount of smoke that a typical tobacco smoker inhales.

All I'm saying is let's not mislead people and insinuate that pot is some kind of miracle drug that's super good for you when you inhale it. I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as tobacco but even so.

As bilby points out, smoke can be harmful - period. Why single out for regulation the combustion products of one source when people are getting sick and dying from another source that is much more ubiquitously available?

It's just the terrified kneejerk reaction that Republicans seem to have have about everything they don't understand. I'm sure they will sort it all out in a relaxed conversation over whiskey and cigars...

 

[bilby]

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/arrd.1987.135.1.209

Marijuana smoke is about equally harmful to lungs as tobacco smoke.

Inhaling smoke of any kind is bad for lungs. Even inhaling chemically inert fine particulate dust is bad for lungs; and neither marijuana nor tobacco smokes are chemically inert.

There are some adverse affects in tobacco smokers that are less common in marijuana smokers; and some adverse effects in marijuana smokers that are less common in tobacco smokers. But overall, both groups of smokers (and smokers of both substances) have approximately equal levels of lung impairment when compared with non-smokers.

These are minor symptoms, a cough due to extra sputum. The air passages are irritated.

Not a disease. Not COPD or cancer. The serious problems associated with tobacco smoking, even chewing.

People become seriously ill and even die from hyponatremia all the time from consuming too much water too quickly.

Smoking marijuana will irritate your air passages. That is why half the marijuana sold in Colorado is etables.

It's not a massive risk, but it's not completely safe either. Breathing smoke, form any source, is something that you should avoid, if you care about the long term health effects on your lungs. Whether the rewards of a particular behaviour (whether it is singing songs around a campfire, smoking cigarettes, smoking marijuana, or living in a smoggy city) are worth the risks is up to the individual - But anyone who says 'Mariijuana isn't bad for your lungs' is simply wrong.

No matter how much they really truly want it to be true, they are wrong.

 

[bilby]

Marijuana smoke is about equally harmful to lungs as tobacco smoke.

Pretty safe then, since a "normal" user only inhales a tiny fraction of the amount of smoke that a typical tobacco smoker inhales.

That depends what you call 'Pretty safe'. Most tobacco smokers (at least in the developed world) consider the immediate benefits of their habit to outweigh the long term risk. So do marijuana smokers. Whether they are right is a matter of opinion; But if either group believe that their habit is not causing any long term lung health risks, then they are wrong in their assessment, and are not making an informed choice.

 

[bilby]

All I'm saying is let's not mislead people and insinuate that pot is some kind of miracle drug that's super good for you when you inhale it. I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as tobacco but even so.

As bilby points out, smoke can be harmful - period. Why single out for regulation the combustion products of one source when people are getting sick and dying from another source that is much more ubiquitously available?

It's just the terrified kneejerk reaction that Republicans seem to have have about everything they don't understand. I'm sure they will sort it all out in a relaxed conversation over whiskey and cigars...

Exactly. There are no health or public safety grounds for marijuana prohibition that do not make an at least equal case for tobacco and alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition is stupid, as has been demonstrated repeatedly with a variety of recreational drugs; Most famously, alcohol prohibition in the USA, but also the 'War on Drugs' nonsense that's been running for a century or so.

Far better to let people make their own choices. And for the optimum result, make sure that good quality information is available about the various risks involved, so that the choices people make are informed choices.

 

[Elixir]

As bilby points out, smoke can be harmful - period. Why single out for regulation the combustion products of one source when people are getting sick and dying from another source that is much more ubiquitously available?

It's just the terrified kneejerk reaction that Republicans seem to have have about everything they don't understand. I'm sure they will sort it all out in a relaxed conversation over whiskey and cigars...

Exactly. There are no health or public safety grounds for marijuana prohibition that do not make an at least equal case for tobacco and alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition is stupid, as has been demonstrated repeatedly with a variety of recreational drugs; Most famously, alcohol prohibition in the USA, but also the 'War on Drugs' nonsense that's been running for a century or so.

Far better to let people make their own choices. And for the optimum result, make sure that good quality information is available about the various risks involved, so that the choices people make are informed choices.

Hear here. I'd take it a step further. Circa 1955, listening raptly to the car radio, a story about heroin came on. I asked My Mom what that was, and she explained that such things as illegal drugs exist, and mentioned that she thought "everything should be legal". That's an ex-military conservative republican woman of the 50's...
Think of it though - if drugs were a totally unregulated free-for-all, it would put selective pressure on the HSS population that would favor intelligence and the ability to discern honest sources. People who were susceptible to Fake News would soon weed themselves out of the gene pool.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. There are no health or public safety grounds for marijuana prohibition that do not make an at least equal case for tobacco and alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition is stupid, as has been demonstrated repeatedly with a variety of recreational drugs; Most famously, alcohol prohibition in the USA, but also the 'War on Drugs' nonsense that's been running for a century or so.

Far better to let people make their own choices. And for the optimum result, make sure that good quality information is available about the various risks involved, so that the choices people make are informed choices.

Hear here. I'd take it a step further. Circa 1955, listening raptly to the car radio, a story about heroin came on. I asked My Mom what that was, and she explained that such things as illegal drugs exist, and mentioned that she thought "everything should be legal". That's an ex-military conservative republican woman of the 50's...
Think of it though - if drugs were a totally unregulated free-for-all, it would put selective pressure on the HSS population that would favor intelligence and the ability to discern honest sources. People who were susceptible to Fake News would soon weed themselves out of the gene pool.

I don't see why drugs would be a totally unregulated free for all, any more than food is. The FDA (and similar agencies in other countries) have a legitimate role in setting and enforcing quality standards for the products people sell for human consumption; People should no more be permitted to sell Heroin cut with baking soda than they would be allowed to sell flour cut with borax.

Indeed, the ability to regulate quality is one of the key benefits of legalisation. Consumers should be able to trust that the goods they buy match what it says on the label, and that if you buy a loaf of bread it really does contain the ingredients listed, and really does weigh what the packaging or the shelf label says it does. Similarly, If I buy drugs, I want to be confident that what I am getting is of the potency on the label, and contains only those added ingredients declared on the label. I get that certainty when I buy Advil; I should get the same assurance when buying recreational drugs. This is one of the things I pay taxes for; The government's failure to regulate and ensure the safety of recreational drugs other than tobacco and alcohol is, in my opinion, a dereliction of their duty to the taxpayer.

 

[untermensche]

These are minor symptoms, a cough due to extra sputum. The air passages are irritated.

Not a disease. Not COPD or cancer. The serious problems associated with tobacco smoking, even chewing.

People become seriously ill and even die from hyponatremia all the time from consuming too much water too quickly.

Smoking marijuana will irritate your air passages. That is why half the marijuana sold in Colorado is etables.

It's not a massive risk, but it's not completely safe either. Breathing smoke, form any source, is something that you should avoid, if you care about the long term health effects on your lungs. Whether the rewards of a particular behaviour (whether it is singing songs around a campfire, smoking cigarettes, smoking marijuana, or living in a smoggy city) are worth the risks is up to the individual - But anyone who says 'Mariijuana isn't bad for your lungs' is simply wrong.

No matter how much they really truly want it to be true, they are wrong.

Saying something is "bad for your lungs" is a term devoid of definition.

Smoking marijuana could possibly cause temporary and reversible inflammation of the inner membranes of the lungs.

There is no known long term disease or disability associated with smoking marijuana.

It is not associated with a shorter life span or any cancer. Millions of Americans have been smoking it for decades. We have a lot of evidence about long term use.

One of the safest substances in the world. Safer than water which kills a lot of people every year.

And it does improve the quality of life for many of its users.

Far more good to say about it than negative.

 

[bilby]

It's not a massive risk, but it's not completely safe either. Breathing smoke, form any source, is something that you should avoid, if you care about the long term health effects on your lungs. Whether the rewards of a particular behaviour (whether it is singing songs around a campfire, smoking cigarettes, smoking marijuana, or living in a smoggy city) are worth the risks is up to the individual - But anyone who says 'Mariijuana isn't bad for your lungs' is simply wrong.

No matter how much they really truly want it to be true, they are wrong.

Saying something is "bad for your lungs" is a term devoid of definition.

Not at all. There are measurable differences between the lungs of smokers and those of non-smokers. And those differences can be shown to lead to long term harm to the lungs.

Smoking marijuana could possibly cause temporary and reversible inflammation of the inner membranes of the lungs.

And could also possibly cause permanent and accumulative damage to lung tissues.

There is no known long term disease or disability associated with smoking marijuana.

Your bald assertion of this doesn't convince me.

It is not associated with a shorter life span or any cancer. Millions of Americans have been smoking it for decades. We have a lot of evidence about long term use.

Then present some.

One of the safest substances in the world. Safer than water which kills a lot of people every year.

That's utter tosh. And it makes me less, not more, likely to accept your earlier unsupported assertions as plausible.

And it does improve the quality of life for many of its users.

As do all recreational drugs. That fact doesn't render them harmless though.

Far more good to say about it than negative.

Says you. Why should I concur? Where are the peer reviewed papers in respectable medical journals?

I provided evidence to support my understanding, that it is harmful, but not demonstrably more so than the inhalation of other kinds of smoke.

You seem keen that I should agree with your more adventurous claim, that it is safer than water - and yet you present no evidence to support this assertion. If you don't care whether I agree with you, then why comment at all? If you DO care, then what in your past experience on this board has led you to imagine for an instant that I will simply take your unsupported word for your extraordinary claim?

What mechanism do you propose that would render marijuana smoke magically less damaging than the smoke produced by burning any other plant? What trials or case studies support that claim to a degree of significance that would indicate that there is justification for looking for such a mechanism?

Or is this just another of your proclamations of TRUTH^TM that we are expected to believe simply because you assert it? Are you able to support your claims, or will you just resort to declaring any refutation of them 'ridiculous', without making any attempt to back that with facts?

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to comprehend.

I cannot prove a negative.

A drug is deemed safe when the lethal dose is high and there is no associated reduction in life span or association with chronic disease with chronic use.

That is how we determine if drugs on the market are safe.

So to claim the drug is not safe some evidence to the contrary is needed.

A temporary throat irritation is not evidence of a drug being unsafe.

The problem with tobacco is not the throat irritation.

The problem is the absolute association with COPD and cancer.

 

[bilby]

You don't seem to comprehend.

I cannot prove a negative.

A drug is deemed safe when the lethal dose is high and there is no associated reduction in life span or association with chronic disease with chronic use.

That is how we determine if drugs on the market are safe.

So to claim the drug is not safe some evidence to the contrary is needed.

A temporary throat irritation is not evidence of a drug being unsafe.

The problem with tobacco is not the throat irritation.

The problem is the absolute association with COPD and cancer.

OK, so

1) You don't have, or don't want to produce, any actual evidence; and
2) You appear to want me to change my mind to align with your position anyway.

So this is yet another case of Untermensche spamming a thread with unsupported assertions of his beliefs. If your claims involved gods, they would likely break the forum's rule about proselytising.

I do not care what you believe. I only give a shit about what you can demonstrate to be true.

I have provided evidence that inhaling the smoke from burning plant material is harmful to the long-term health of lungs. This is an uncontroversial and well supported understanding in the medical community. Here is some more evidence:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08958370600985875

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/27/3/542.short

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pu.15.050194.001025?journalCode=publhealth

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937400290070062

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/32/1/129.short

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3268107

http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1083499

Please feel free to either post some actual evidence to support your position, or to shut the fuck up, and let people who give a shit about reality have a say.

Nobody cares about your quasi-religious beliefs. Nobody wants to hear you preach. Nobody is going to be persuaded by your unsupported claims. Put up, or shut up.

 

[untermensche]

Woodsmoke?

Show me health effects in chronic marijuana users. There are millions and millions of them. Millions and millions of people who smoke marijuana everyday.

The topic in case you had some seizure.

 

[bilby]

Woodsmoke?

Show me health effects in chronic marijuana users. There are millions and millions of them. Millions and millions of people who smoke marijuana everyday.

The topic in case you had some seizure.

Please stop spamming threads with your unsupported beliefs. If you haven't got anything to support your claims, then I am not interested in discussing them further.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you haven't got anything to support your claims, then I am not interested in discussing them further.

No, no, YOU have to do HIS homework... Because... Reasons, somehow.

 

[untermensche]

Woodsmoke?

Show me health effects in chronic marijuana users. There are millions and millions of them. Millions and millions of people who smoke marijuana everyday.

The topic in case you had some seizure.

Please stop spamming threads with your unsupported beliefs. If you haven't got anything to support your claims, then I am not interested in discussing them further.

You're the lost child posting some totally unrelated research about woodsmoke when the topic is about chronic marijuana smoking.

You have no research about the topic at hand so you flood with unrelated nonsense.

What a jerk!

 

[LordKiran]

Please stop spamming threads with your unsupported beliefs. If you haven't got anything to support your claims, then I am not interested in discussing them further.

You're the lost child posting some totally unrelated research about woodsmoke when the topic is about chronic marijuana smoking.

You have no research about the topic at hand so you flood with unrelated nonsense.

What a jerk!

Well you get out of people what you put in.

Bilby's request is perfectly reasonable by the way. Put up, or shut up.

 

[untermensche]

You're the lost child posting some totally unrelated research about woodsmoke when the topic is about chronic marijuana smoking.

You have no research about the topic at hand so you flood with unrelated nonsense.

What a jerk!

Well you get out of people what you put in.

Bilby's request is perfectly reasonable by the way. Put up, or shut up.

The fool is asking for me to prove a negative.

There is no research published that shows what doesn't happen.

There is only research trying to make statistical correlations between the chronic use of some drug and medical outcomes.

And I keep saying it but some can't comprehend.

Millions of people smoke marijuana everyday.

And we live in a culture where anti-marijuana fanatics would love to find some serious health problem with chronic marijuana use.

But none exists.

 

[J842P]

Evidence?

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/arrd.1987.135.1.209

Marijuana smoke is about equally harmful to lungs as tobacco smoke.

Inhaling smoke of any kind is bad for lungs. Even inhaling chemically inert fine particulate dust is bad for lungs; and neither marijuana nor tobacco smokes are chemically inert.

There are some adverse affects in tobacco smokers that are less common in marijuana smokers; and some adverse effects in marijuana smokers that are less common in tobacco smokers. But overall, both groups of smokers (and smokers of both substances) have approximately equal levels of lung impairment when compared with non-smokers.

Actually, the citation you are giving is almost 30 years out of date. Dr. Tashkin has spent a long career comparing the pulmonary of effects of smoked marijuana and smoked tobacco. With respect to lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, I believe his more recent conclusion is that even heavy marijuana smoking poses far lower risks than tobacco smoking. Of course, smoking *anything* has deleterious health consequences for your lungs. Epidemiologically though, we have not been able to establish a correlation with marijuana smoking the more "grave" consequences we see with tobacco smokers.

I think there are many ways to explain this. At the very least, I think it is obvious that tobacco posses a particular combination of properties that make it a particularly potent carcinogen. Indeed, even chewing tobacco will cause neoplasms in the mouth and throat.

I think marijuana has a combinations of properties that make it a less potent carcinogen. Of course, any smoke contains carcinogens. However, cannabiniods have been found to posses antineoplastic properties. Unfortunately, the downright stupid classification of marijuana as Schedule I in the us has blocked off a significant portions of biomedical researchers from even considering compounds derived from marijuana as potentially therapeutic. However, I do know that some European teams, particularly in Spain and Italy, have followed that thread for some time now. There were a few people publishing about gliomas and cannabiniods a while back. Also, I remember something about about cannabiniods acting as anti-angiogenics.

That is not to say it's some miracle drug directly from the Gods of the Earth, as some potheads would want you to believe.

Finally, it is difficult to compare marijuana smoking and tobacco smoking. Heavy tobacco smokers can burn and inhale 20 grams a day or more. The proportion of marijuana smokers who are that extreme are at the very tail end and comprise a small, unrepresentative sample. It may just be difficult to see the effects. As marijuana has become more potent, people smoke less and less. Even a "daily" smoker might only be smoking a small fraction of what a daily tobacco smoker consumes.

At any rate, I think it is great that marijuana use has moved more towards vaporization and so-called edibles, especially where its use has become tolerated or outright legalized. Indeed, I saw "vaping" become popular in the marijuana smoking community long before it caught on with tobacco smokers. I'm living in the most tolerant city in the US when it comes to most things, and definitely marijuana. I can have marijuana delivered to me using an app I saw advertised on a billboard. I think before long, marijuana legalization will have been invented by the US, and become as American as apple pie. Despite us having spent the last century making it's prohibition throughout the world a foreign policy, and using our diplomatic weight to combat any experimentation with tolerance. Nevertheless, the examples of the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and others have shown it is likely the route to take if one truly cares about the negative health effects of drug abuse.

 

[untermensche]

That is not to say it's some miracle drug directly from the Gods of the Earth, as some potheads would want you to believe.

If it isn't it is as close as possible.

Marijuana smokers are not causing problems.

It is not destroying lives and brains like alcohol.

Not causing COPD and cancer like tobacco.

A lot of evidence showing effectiveness with pain. The pain medications being prescribed are extremely dangerous and people are dying from them all the time.

No neurologist could test somebody and conclude they were a chronic marijuana user.

A pulmonologist could probably tell but wouldn't have to prescribe anything. Minor problems will not progress to COPD if it is only marijuana smoking.