Well, two of them, anyway.
Yesterday there was a study published which stated that prescription overdose deaths are lower in states with legal medical marajuana.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/study-finds-fewer-overdose-deaths-in-medical-marijuana-states/article_8ca175e9-36d8-5cfb-9cc2-dca5f8bfe878.html
Today we hear that:
| The researchers discovered that the more often couples smoked marijuana (approximately two or three times monthly), the less frequent husbands engaged in violent behavior against their wives. The corelations between non-violence and pot use was most prevalent among women who had no previous history of antisocial behavior. |
I hear that tomorrow there will be the announcement of a study that elected officials who smoke pot write fewer bad laws--especially about pot.
*****Notice: I don't smoke pot. I'm allergic.
Link - (
New Window )
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
Quote:
In comment 11828055 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
Ever hear of a bad law? Ever look into what made up this particular set of laws? You have an exceptionally rigid viewpoint; I don't. Doesn't really mean much, but maybe try looking at it from both sides (I do).
IMO, legalize it - it's not worth the headaches created by making it illegal.
Except be high!
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
So, poison ivy gets you pleasurably high? Who knew?
More power to you, mg! Let me know how it works out.
(Yeah, yeah, I know it was sarcasm).
Academic issues - ( New Window )
Journal of Neuroscience - ( New Window )
I can't remember the name of the article - ( New Window )
"None of the users reported any problems with school, work, legal issues, parents or relationships, according to Dr. Hans Breiter, co-senior author of the study and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine."
"The groups in the study started using marijuana daily between 16 to 17 years of age for about three years."
This article seems to refer to heavy/daily use in teens. Is anyone here proposing to make it legal for use by teenagers? Seems like the data would be inapplicale to all but a very small minority of users.
I'd also be curious how daily use of alcohol would affect teenagers.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
I don't think anyone would be surprised that completely sober students tend to do better than students that party.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
Driving under the influence of pot is illegal in WA and CO and would be illegal under any new laws as well I'd presume.
The brain changes when people drink alcohol, coffee (caffein), eat high amounts of sugar/fats, etc.
I think your overall point makes sense (that there's potential risks/drawbacks to cannabis use and that people need to be careful), but there's risks/drawbacks to lots of things in life that people enjoy. The risks/drawbacks to adults using cannabis, by all accounts, appear to be relatively minor when compared to a lot of othert things that are already legal.
I think the strength of marijuana can be measured. I believe some of the stores actually describe what kind of high each sample provides.
The more worrisome issue is the pot edibles. I can imagine you could ingest more than you wanted to without realizing it.
Hell, I've killed and eaten only three people since all that weed caught up to me. Where was it you said you lived?
Well, without compromising myself (or anyone else) too much, I've been in league with Brett and Davisian, processing slightly used kidneys and enjoying the more than occasional platter of long pig.
If the kidneys were good, we didn't bother with doing a Dahmer on them. If the kidneys were bad, however, watch out!
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Might as well find a way to make our economy boom off it.
Quote:
Is crime lower in Colorado and Washington after legal weed?
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Yikes, you really don't see the big picture, do you? First of all if marijuana is legal you have can wipe possession related arrests off the board. That alone takes a tremendous strain on lower level courts. Philadelphia moved towards decriminalization about 4 years ago after studies showed the city was spending millions upon millions of dollars to arrest, house, and prosecute people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
That's where you will see your short term returns. Long term, it will be interesting to see what effect it has on trafficking and gang related crime.
[quote] stronger than it was in my youth - late 70s / early 80s. Seems that things like car accidents from being under the influence of MaryJ will get / have gotten worse.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis. [/quote
& I'm sure you're always perfectly able to calculate how drunk you are according to the law if the difference between the alcohol content of the 12 oz. beer you drink is 4.5 or 7.2, even though it says what the alcohol content is on the bottle. You don't even have that luxury if you buy a few beers on tap at your local bar or club.
From the 100s of people I've known who smoked pot pretty regularly since I was 17 (I'm 54 & virtually everyone who goes to or performs at concerts dsmokes regularly), it matters not a whit how strong the pot they happen to be turned onto. Every single person knows what their capacity is for getting "too" stoned, if there is even such a thing for regular tokers. The people who rarely smoke have no clue at all about how people who do smoke regularly handle their "addiction."
I went to Albany State - 1 of the 2 best schools in the NY state system along with Binghampton - & virtually everyone smoked pot. A lot of it. I knew of only TWO people who didn't graduate. 1 was a roommate the school foisted upon me for 1 semester & he was a completely whacked out transfer student who had done PCP a bunch too many times. The other ate a bunch of acid each day every week for about 2 months.
Some Fan, you have some ENORMOUS reading comprehension problems that are far more serious than any pot related problems that exist in society. The article you posted rather clearly did NOT say that pot related fatalities increased 3 times since pot was legalized. As a matter of fact, the 2 states in which pot was legalized - Colorado & Washington - weren't even included in the study, which ended in 2010, 3 & 4 years before pot effectively became legal in those 2 states. That study was limited to only 6 states, hence it says NOTHING about the country as a whole or the 2 states in which it was legalized. If you can't post something that is remotely relevant or factually true, then just STFU altogether instead of proving what a complete fucking moron you are.
I don't care if people smoke pot. But I wonder what will happen if years from now, there are health issues associated with it (similar to cigarettes). Will that negate all the good of the benefits that we see now? I guess time will tell.
Quote:
In comment 11828393 lawguy9801 said:
Quote:
Is crime lower in Colorado and Washington after legal weed?
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Yikes, you really don't see the big picture, do you? First of all if marijuana is legal you have can wipe possession related arrests off the board. That alone takes a tremendous strain on lower level courts. Philadelphia moved towards decriminalization about 4 years ago after studies showed the city was spending millions upon millions of dollars to arrest, house, and prosecute people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
That's where you will see your short term returns. Long term, it will be interesting to see what effect it has on trafficking and gang related crime.
The factors you mention are obvious. I was responding to Lawguy based on his history of trying to convolute stats to support his particular political viewpoint.
Millions and millions of people smoke it, for a long long time.
Like everything there are pros and cons, marijuana use in moderation does appear to be far less dangerous than most other substances used for recreational effect, including alcohol.
I think as marijuana continues to gain acceptance you will see better and more widely available vaporizers which will further diminish the risk of use by removing the negative effects of inhaling combusted plant material.
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous.
So you think that getting high does not impair your judgement and/or ability to operate a vehicle AT ALL?
Yeah I really don't see a huge increase in smoking pot due to it being legal or not. The current laws are not stopping any significant amount of kids trying it, and/or continuing its usage. It being legal might increase usage in older individuals who smoked it while younger, but once again that will be a small percentage
marijuana use in moderation does appear to be far less dangerous than most other substances used for recreational effect, including alcohol.
Studies have shown that alcohol in moderation actually provides medical benefits. Of course, the key for all these non-narcotic drugs is the word moderation. Putting marijuana on a pedestal is as wrong as believing the "Reefer Madness" BS of years ago.
Working within these limitations, we do our best to address the question of whether alcohol or marijuana is “more dangerous.” Along the way, you’ll hear Steve Levitt‘s views on the relationship between alcohol and crime. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron tells us whether prohibition works, and whether the long-standing belief in marijuana as a gateway drug is legitimate. And you’ll hear from the British psychiatrist David Nutt, a one-time “drug czar” who was fired for criticizing the British government’s decision to reclassify marijuana as a more serious drug. Nutt had come to believe that alcohol (and cigarettes) are, on balance, more dangerous than marijuana and other drugs. He and his colleagues calculated the “harm score” of various drugs, taking into account everything from physical damage to lost productivity. As you can see here, alcohol came out at the very top — in large part, to be sure, because of its prevalence:
Link - ( New Window )
Studies have shown that alcohol in moderation actually provides medical benefits. Of course, the key for all these non-narcotic drugs is the word moderation. Putting marijuana on a pedestal is as wrong as believing the "Reefer Madness" BS of years ago.
Yeah, I don't discount the reality of negative consequences for overuse or misuse of marijuana, however my view is that these consequences are generally less severe than most other substances.
For the record, I am an every weekend drinker and I do not use marijuana.
Quote:
As simple a question as this may be, it isn’t so easy to answer empirically. That’s because alcohol is legal, widely available, relatively cheap, and for the most part society smiles upon it — whereas marijuana is generally illegal, less easily available, and often frowned upon. This, of course, is changing, as more places are legalizing marijuana (Colorado and Washington State in the U.S.; Portugal, meanwhile, decriminalized many drugs not long ago.) That said, there is a lot more data on alcohol use than marijuana use, simply because of alcohol’s prevalence.
Working within these limitations, we do our best to address the question of whether alcohol or marijuana is “more dangerous.” Along the way, you’ll hear Steve Levitt‘s views on the relationship between alcohol and crime. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron tells us whether prohibition works, and whether the long-standing belief in marijuana as a gateway drug is legitimate. And you’ll hear from the British psychiatrist David Nutt, a one-time “drug czar” who was fired for criticizing the British government’s decision to reclassify marijuana as a more serious drug. Nutt had come to believe that alcohol (and cigarettes) are, on balance, more dangerous than marijuana and other drugs. He and his colleagues calculated the “harm score” of various drugs, taking into account everything from physical damage to lost productivity. As you can see here, alcohol came out at the very top — in large part, to be sure, because of its prevalence:
Link - ( New Window )
To their credit, they acknowledge the limitations on these comparisons given the different legal frameworks they operate in. However, count me as incredibly skeptical as to the graph showing that meth is less harmful to the user than alcohol. To begin with, are there any studies showing that use of meth in moderation provides any medical benefits whatsoever?
Its saying that alcohol is more harmful to society because of its wide spread use.
If you equalized usage I'm sure met would trump booze.
Certainly if meth were used at the level that alcohol is, that graph would look a LOT different.
These findings were robust even after controlling for things like demographic variables, behavioral problems, and alcohol use. The authors studied data from 634 couples over nine years of marriage, starting in 1996. Couples were administered regular questionnaires on a variety of issues, including recent drug and alcohol use and instances of physical aggression toward their spouses.
Previous research on the relationship between marijuana use and domestic violence has largely been based on cross-sectional data (that is, data from one point in time), and those findings have been mixed: some studies found links between marijuana use and/or abuse and domestic violence, while others did not. The Buffalo study is one of the few to use data collected over the course of decades to examine the question, putting it on solid methodological ground compared to previous work.
link - ( New Window )