What will Trump Admin do about marijuana?

[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.

Actually, the citation you are giving is almost 30 years out of date.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.

Thanks for the link.

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.

Indeed, which is exactly the position I take on the issue.

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.

Yes, tobacco is pretty nasty stuff. But that's no reason to prohibit its use by informed adults - it's up to them to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

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.

Quite. The reality certainly lies in the middle ground between the crazy people who think one puff will turn people into the reincarnation of the devil, and those who think that the world would be saved if only we all smoked marijuana all day (and used hemp for clothing, and as fuel, and as a miracle cure for all diseases).

Insane though both of these extreme positions are, there are, in my experience, quite a lot of people in one or other of these camps.

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.

Yes, I think you are probably right; The US federal position, which gets expressed in diplomatic relations with other countries, is one of strict prohibition, while the individual states are in many cases much more sensible. All the evidence supports full legalisation as the least harmful option, even for hard drugs (ideally combined with assistance for addicts who want to quit, and good public access to information to help users make informed choices).

Of course that doesn't make the 'cannabis cures everything' crowd any less wrong.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Well sure, the body count would be high for a while. But that's what happens when a population faces selective pressures. I probably wouldn't want to live through the mayhem that would ensue if food and drugs were totally unregulated starting tomorrow. In principle though, a zero-reg environment should create a market for reliable information sources whose success rely on the verity of the information they provide. Things would settle down eventually, and the survivors would be those who had learned caution and respect for all things ingested...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He does have a point, though--where's the evidence of chronic health effects in marijuana smokers? If there was any substantial threat the drug warriors would be shouting it from the rooftops. All we see them shouting about is the psychiatric issues--and there's a big question of cause and effect there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

20 grams/day is a 1-pack/day smoker. Moderate for tobacco, extremely heavy for marijuana.

 

[barbos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Mental_health
quite a list.

 

[untermensche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Mental_health
quite a list.

All very speculative.

Here are the conclusions from the study referenced by J842P.

Regular use of marijuana causes airway injury leading to symptoms of chronic bronchitis in some smokers but no physiological or high-resolution computed tomography evidence of emphysema. Despite the presence of procarcinogenic components in marijuana smoke, a limited number of appropriately performed and analyzed epidemiologic studies have failed to demonstrate an increased risk for either lung or upper airway cancer in association with marijuana smoking, although evidence is mixed regarding the risk of heavy, long-term use. The immunosuppressive effects of THC and reports of bacterial and fungal contamination of marijuana imply an increased risk of pneumonia. While this increased risk is also suggested by isolated case reports in immunocompromised patients and by older epidemiologic studies, it has not been confirmed in a large AIDS cohort study. Isolated case reports of pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease in heavy users of marijuana have implicated marijuana as an etiologic factor, but epidemiologic confirmation of a causal link is absent. Overall, the risks of pulmonary complications of regular use of marijuana appear to be relative small and far lower than those of tobacco smoking. However, such potential pulmonary risks need to be weighed against possible benefits in considerations regarding medicinal use of marijuana.

If somebody is getting some positive effect from marijuana there is no reason to tell them to stop using it.

Life is short and marijuana won't make it shorter.

 

[barbos]

All very speculative.

Well, there is synthetic marijuana which is basically much stronger. And it was 100% linked to all that shit mentioned there, there is nothing speculative about it. So it's about dosage.

 

[untermensche]

All very speculative.

Well, there is synthetic marijuana which is basically much stronger. And it was 100% linked to all that shit mentioned there, there is nothing speculative about it. So it's about dosage.

Synthetic marijuana is Marinol. It is prescribed for nausea and loss of appetite.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

 

[barbos]

Well, there is synthetic marijuana which is basically much stronger. And it was 100% linked to all that shit mentioned there, there is nothing speculative about it. So it's about dosage.

Synthetic marijuana is Marinol. It is prescribed for nausea and loss of appetite.

You seem to know a lot about subject, is there are reasons why?

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

 

[untermensche]

Synthetic marijuana is Marinol. It is prescribed for nausea and loss of appetite.

You seem to know a lot about subject, is there are reasons why?

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

 

[bilby]

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.

Well sure, the body count would be high for a while. But that's what happens when a population faces selective pressures. I probably wouldn't want to live through the mayhem that would ensue if food and drugs were totally unregulated starting tomorrow. In principle though, a zero-reg environment should create a market for reliable information sources whose success rely on the verity of the information they provide. Things would settle down eventually, and the survivors would be those who had learned caution and respect for all things ingested...

That's not what we saw in 19th and early 20th century England and the USA, or what we see in modern day China. In the absence of regulations and inspections, adulterated products become endemic, and consumers have neither the information nor the resources to do the tests needed to protect themselves. Victorian bakers who used borax in their flour caused some customer deaths, but these were few enough, and sufficiently difficult to link to specific bakers, that it took explicit regulation and policing of food quality to bring the practice to an end.

The free market may hypothetically resolve the problems after a certain amount of time; But in practice, this merely reduces adulteration to a low enough level to provide deniability for the perpetrators, but not to a low enough level to eliminate adverse health effects for consumers.

Observation always trumps theory; And in this case, we know from experience that neither consumer demand nor natural selection of savvy consumers leads to an end to adulteration; The only thing that brought it to an end was government enforcement of strict regulations.

 

[barbos]

You seem to know a lot about subject, is there are reasons why?

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

 

[untermensche]

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

If everybody stopped smoking tobacco, in a generation overall health care costs would plummet.

Tobacco smokers use a large amount of heath care resources.

And many live in tortuous conditions for years.

If everybody stopped smoking marijuana.

They would sell less donuts.

 

[barbos]

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

If everybody stopped smoking tobacco, in a generation overall health care costs would plummet.

Tobacco smokers use a large amount of heath care resources.

And many live in tortuous conditions for years.

If everybody stopped smoking marijuana.

They would sell less donuts.

Growing marijuana consumes resources too.

 

[untermensche]

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

If everybody stopped smoking tobacco, in a generation overall health care costs would plummet.

Tobacco smokers use a large amount of heath care resources.

And many live in tortuous conditions for years.

If everybody stopped smoking marijuana.

They would sell less donuts.

Growing marijuana consumes resources too.

Health care resources are hospital beds, doctors, nurses, medications, mechanical ventilators, and things like that.

Growing marijuana requires water and the sun.

 

[Elixir]

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

If everybody stopped smoking tobacco, in a generation overall health care costs would plummet.

Tobacco smokers use a large amount of heath care resources.

And many live in tortuous conditions for years.

If everybody stopped smoking marijuana.

They would sell less donuts.

Growing marijuana consumes resources too.

Health care resources are hospital beds, doctors, nurses, medications, mechanical ventilators, and things like that.

Growing marijuana requires water and the sun.

Those will be two things that are in short supply once the EPA is gone, the water poisoned and the skies darkened with coal dust. I think that's their plan for stamping out marijuana.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hard to predict the future on this.

If the statewise legal and taxed industry was a few more years and states ahead I don't think he would do anything, but it is not.

I guess that it will depend on what scams the sharks in his admin can convince him about. It looks like someone with interests in private prisons will push heavily for a crackdown on it. A great way to insure a steady pipeline of inmates.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/23/private-prisons-back-trump-and-could-see-big-payoffs-new-policies/98300394/

Is there anyway for a scumbag who also knows the cash that be had through taxing weed or investing in the business to be appointed to a position that can bend his ear?

He's a fascist/populist. All he needs is one scapegoat to blame his failures on. As long as he's got Muslims to blame it on I see no reason why he would have a go at marijuana. The legalisation train seems pretty hard to stop at this point. I'm not in any way implying that he's intelligent. But it would be smart to get out of the way and let the states handle marijuana on their own. Which is the basic Republican strategy, isn't it?

 

[barbos]

I'm a pharmacist. But online anybody can get more drug information than any pharmacist knows.

So-called synthetic marijuana is not marijuana at all.

Well, it's chemically different but similar and effects are similar too. It's just people overdose often.

It is a completely different substance. Stay away from it.

Don't tell me that, If it it was up to me I would ban any kind of smoking

If everybody stopped smoking tobacco, in a generation overall health care costs would plummet.

Tobacco smokers use a large amount of heath care resources.

And many live in tortuous conditions for years.

If everybody stopped smoking marijuana.

They would sell less donuts.

Growing marijuana consumes resources too.

Health care resources are hospital beds, doctors, nurses, medications, mechanical ventilators, and things like that.

Growing marijuana requires water and the sun.

Water is a resource.
And land, and care I understand if you want good stuff, in other words lots of resources. Same with tobacco.

 

[untermensche]

Water is a resource.
And land, and care I understand if you want good stuff, in other words lots of resources. Same with tobacco.

Well you consume water too.

I see no point.

 

[barbos]

Water is a resource.
And land, and care I understand if you want good stuff, in other words lots of resources. Same with tobacco.

Well you consume water too.

I see no point.

The difference is, I need water to live and enjoy living. You don't need tobacco/marijuana to live and enjoy living. They are completely alien to human body drugs.