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 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 )