Journal mcgrew's Journal: Scientist says white is black 18
The British rag The Daily Mail has been coming up in Google News with the above linked story.
It is incredibly faulty; it's propaganda. The headline screams "The terrible truth about cannabis: Expert's devastating 20-year study finally demolishes claims that smoking pot is harmless".
In the first place, no drug is harmless. Few things in existence are completely harmless, in fact. Even something necessary for life, like water, can be dangerous. Unlike marijuana, you can actually overdose on water. People have died from drinking too much water, nobody has died from smoking too much pot.
"Is pot harmless?" is not only the wrong question, it's a stupid question. So lets look at this fellow's "20 year study" and at the fellow's credentials.
Is he a neuroscientist? Biochemist? Physician?
No. Wikipedia says that Wayne Denis Hall a psychologist. As such, he's no more qualified to study the dangers of drugs than I am. Lets look at the claims, with the most stupid first, that the Mail repeats..
"If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol."
This is just not incorrect, it's WRONG and irresponsible. Apparently Professor Hall has never seen an alcoholic going through withdrawal, but I have. It's horrible; the addict goes through not just psychological terror, seeing snakes and spiders on them, it is physically painful and can cause seizures. Withdrawal from heroin or alcohol can be fatal.
Marijuana's "addiction" is psychological only; unlike heroin, alcohol, or coffee, there are no physical withdrawal effects. Marijuana is more like orange juice than alcohol. Get drunk every day for a year and quit and you could die.
Get stoned while drinking orange juice every night, and when it's gone quitting both will be similar, although you'll miss pot more.
If pot is as addictive as heroin, why don't potheads steal to support their habits, like almost all heroin addicts do?
The world has too many drug addicts as it is, and statements like these from a scientist will lead people to believe that heroin and cocaine are as harmless as marijuana.
One in six teenagers who regularly smoke the drug become dependent on it
That's likely true. Marijuana is, in fact, dangerous to teens. It has been shown to interrupt the development of the adolescent brain. Kids shouldn't smoke pot, but unfortunately it's easier for a teenager to get pot than it is for an adult. And every pot smoker I know who started as a kid is in poverty. Kids, stay away from it until you're 19 or preferably older.
We can dismiss adolescent pot use, it is obviously harmful.
Cannabis doubles the risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia
Yes, there is a correlation between mental illness and all psychoactive drugs, but the causation goes the other way. There were schizophrenic kids in my neighborhood when I grew up, all were obviously batshit insane, and all wound up on drugs later.
One in ten adults who regularly smoke the drug become dependent on it and those who use it are more likely to go on to use harder drugs
Again, the "dependance" is little worse than orange juice and nowhere near as bad as coffee. As to leading to harder drugs, this is the fault of prohibition. "Got any weed, man?"
"No, I'm out. Want some coke?"
This problem goes away with legalization, as Colorado has shown.
Driving after smoking cannabis doubles the risk of a car crash, a risk which increases substantially if the driver has also had a drink
Well, duh. I grin at the "increases substantially if the driver has also had a drink".
I'll also note that unlike drinking, when you're high you don't WANT to drive a car. You're far less likely to get behind the wheel after a couple of joints than after a couple of shots of whiskey.
He also states that taking the drug while pregnant can reduce the weight of a baby, and long-term use raises the risk of cancer, bronchitis and heart attack.
Smoking anything does increase the danger of various lung diseases, but a study a few years ago baffled the researchers who did the study; the results were the opposite of what they expected. They studied four groups of geezers -- long term pot smokers, cigarette smokers, people who smoked both and nonsmokers.
They expected twice the cancers in pot smokers than nonsmokers and twice the cancers in smokers of both than cigarettes alone. However, the data showed that pot smokers actually had fewer cancers than nonsmokers (although statistically insignificant) and smokers of both had half the cancers than those who only smoked cigarettes.
Rather than causing cancer, pot may actually prevent it.
This sort of sensationalist bullshit is why so many people distrust science. This fellow is a psychologist who mostly studies adolescents. Yes, kids and pregnant women shouldn't smoke pot, or anything else. But we should legalize it for adults, partly to keep it out of kids' hands.
As someone who never smoked anything ... (Score:2)
I can say that they both stink, and that people should stop being hypocrites. Either ban tobacco, or legalize weed. Or as a compromise, since tobacco causes less harm than weed, ban tobacco and legalize weed so that people who are about to go into a "nic fit" can mellow out a bit.
But it's hard to be reasonable with addicts, and people who smoke cigarettes ARE addicts. They know it. They know it will eventually kill them. They know that all those years they were saying "I can quit any time" they were j
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably the only dispute I know of where I can quickly
Re: (Score:2)
Without a doubt both sides are shading the truth in their favor. It's what people do - they are reluctant to admit the downside for their favorite vice.
I'm following my nose - and my nose says anything that smells that bad can't be good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Pot that smells bad usually won't get you very high. The good stuff smells green.
That said, it isn't for everyone. It is good for inspiration for writing, it's a lot easier for me to get in my "writing trance" after a couple of tokes. It was the same with programming at first, also (I was never high at work, that is certainly drug abuse, just like going to work drunk is).
Re: (Score:2)
We were having a lot of problems with infighting so I suggested we go down to the local Irish pub every second Friday for lunch. Everyone had a few, the guys kept asking me if my daughter (who was working there at the time) was single, and a good time was had by all. A little lost productivity on a Friday afternoon was more than made up by the benefits to the work environment.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the circumstance, of course. Sanctioned drinking isn't abuse, although when those situations arose at work I generally took the afternoon off (I was in a pretty good union and had good bosses who would let me use vacation time any time I wanted).
Re: (Score:2)
"No, that won't work, nobody likes me." "You don't give them a chance to like you." "I don't want to." "Come on, you need it."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, any controversy is going to have a vi-emacs fight between the extremists. Pot is certainly not for everyone. If mental illness runs in your family you might want to be wary, because someone on the edge of madness is in a dangerous place.
And yes, there are lies on both sides, but the pro-pot lies are usually ignorance, while the Partnership for a Drug Free America has nothing but bald faced liars.
The lies started with Harry Anslinger [wikipedia.org], who ran the federal narcotics bureau and wanted more money to funnel
Re: (Score:2)
the pro-pot lies are usually ignorance, while the Partnership for a Drug Free America has nothing but bald faced liars
I respect you too much to go far in to this. I will say that I disagree with both of those statements though.
If you're interested in what I would like to see done regarding pot, I'm willing to say it (as I have before). I will endorse legalization of pot when we come up with a standard, easy, rigorous method for measuring consumption. In particular, I want to see an easily administered field test (preferably with an unbiased number attached to it) that can be used to say when someone has had too much
Re: (Score:2)
I want to see an easily administered field test (preferably with an unbiased number attached to it) that can be used to say when someone has had too much.
I certainly agree with that. No one should be driving while impaired, and I'd like something better than sobriety field tests.
If that person is in public wandering around they get to spend the evening in detox with the drunks who committed the same offense, and pay a small fine (say $50 or so) to discourage them from doing it again and cover the cost of k
Re: (Score:2)
If that person is in public wandering around they get to spend the evening in detox with the drunks who committed the same offense, and pay a small fine (say $50 or so) to discourage them from doing it again and cover the cost of keeping them in detox overnight.
Why should wandering around in public, whether drunk, stoned, or sober, be against the law? If they're jaywalking, ticket them. If they're harassing people, arrest them.
If one was genuinely only wandering around, and not doing anything to attract attention, then the likelihood of being noticed by police is quite nearly zero. I don't really care if someone is able to keep to themselves and let the rest of the world continue on. But if someone is insistent on harassing others, interrupting traffic, etc, they should be dealt with accordingly. Basically anything that could get you in trouble while sober, you get an extra fine and the evening in detox if you do it when drun
Re: (Score:2)
if someone is insistent on harassing others, interrupting traffic, etc, they should be dealt with accordingly.
Well, of course, even if they're stone cold sober. But that simply doesn't happen with pot. Like I said, unlike alcohol and a lot of other drugs, pot doesn't make people obnoxious.
I have known people who feel that life doesn't start until they are stoned, and they are not content to stay home or out of the way. They also believe that society owes it to them to welcome them when they are under the i
Re: (Score:2)
I have known people who feel that life doesn't start until they are stoned, and they are not content to stay home or out of the way. They also believe that society owes it to them to welcome them when they are under the influence and that they are the life of the party at that point.
I've known one or two like that. They're idiots. The ones I've known like that all started smoking in adolescence.
I've seen studies support the notion that the magnitude of pot problems in smokers goes up in correlation with younger ages of starting, and I have seen that myself.
Re: (Score:1)
I will endorse legalization of pot when we come up with a standard, easy, rigorous method for measuring consumption.
Until then, lock the fuckers up! Right? BAH! talking to the wall....
Re: (Score:2)
since tobacco causes less harm than weed
Tobacco kills most of its addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Marijuana is more like orange juice? (Score:1)
Then watch out for stomach ulcers :-)
Smoking weed is a lung irritant. While they may have the same nasty color as your roach. It all clears up when you stop for about a month or so.
Whatever, prohibitionists are racists and bigots. Hearst wanted a way to run off the Mexicans, and the beautiful people on the east coast didn't want their daughters hanging out with reefer smokin' jazz musicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, smoking anything is bad for your lungs. I haven't seen anything about gastric problems from eating it, although I've read you shouldn't eat it raw. I've eaten it without problems, but I have a cast iron stomach, most people who down as many aspirins as I did in Delaware for my arthritis would have had terrible health effects from all those aspirins.