Is Marijuana Harmless?

[Eos of the Eons]

What form does legal cannabis come in? Pill?

What we know of the marijauna form:

Studies show that 6 to 11 percent of fatal accidents are contributed to by marijuana side effects.

Most over-doses occur actually when the drug is eaten because it is easier to consume a large dose all at once.

Marijuana side effects also wreak havoc on the brain when the drug is used habitually. The natural chemical balance of the brain is disrupted affecting the pleasure centers and regulatory systems. The ability to learn, remember and adapt quickly to changes is impaired by marijuana use. Depression often occurs with marijuana usage, which feeds into the cycle of more drug use to treat the pain created by drug use. This cycle of addiction is very powerful and users soon find that they cannot stop using the drug even if they want to.

Marijuana addiction is a progressive disease and marijuana side effects include withdrawal and obsessive thought with the drug when it is not made available.

http://www.marijuana-addiction.net/marijuana-side-effects.htm

The following are some of the common side effects of using marijuana:

• Trouble remembering things
• Sleepiness
• Anxiety
• Paranoia (feeling that people are “out to get you”)
• Altered time perception

The following are some of the common physical effects of marijuana:

• Tremors (shaking)
• Nausea
• Headache
• Coordination becoming worse
• Breathing problems
• Increased appetite
• Reduced blood flow to the brain
• Changes in the reproductive organs

Like tobacco, marijuana contains many chemicals that can hurt the lungs and cause cancer. One marijuana cigarette can cause more damage to the lungs than many tobacco cigarettes because marijuana has more tar in it and is usually smoked without filters.

http://familydoctor.org/485.xml

 

[knot]

I think MJ is less harmful to individuals than the black market it produces, due to legislating behavior, that is harmful to society.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There is a MYTH that MJ is less harmful than cigarrettes. It's effects are actually more harmful, short and long term.

If this "MJ is harmless" myth were dispelled, then people would not feel it should be smoked more than cigarrettes.

That would reduce the demand, and decrease the black market profit base.

MJ may be less harmful than other black market illicit drugs (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth). That doesn't mean it should be legalized for recreational use.

The deadliest side effect of medical marijuana is the message being sent to our kids, the lie that marijuana is safe.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as may someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes per day. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times as much tar into the lungs as a filtered tobacco cigarette.

http://www.theroadout.org/articles/featured_articles/deadliest_side_effect_of_medical_marijuana.html

 

[knot]

There is a MYTH that MJ is less harmful than cigarrettes. It's effects are actually more harmful, short and long term.

If this "MJ is harmless" myth were dispelled, then people would not feel it should be smoked more than cigarrettes.

That would reduce the demand, and decrease the black market profit base.

MJ may be less harmful than other black market illicit drugs (cocaine, crack, heroin, meth). That doesn't mean it should be legalized for recreational use.

I believe it is less harmful if for any reason, it is smoked less often than cigs. Cigs are often smoked every 20 minutes day and night.

For an interesting perspective on pot and drug laws, search google videos for "Penn and Teller drugs"

 

[Eos of the Eons]

1. Smoking it less often is not safer:

a) because the side effects are far more horrible.
b) because the accumulation of tar and other carcinogens is far greater (smoking MJ five times a week is the equivalent to smoking an entire pack of cigs per day)
c)the addiction is just as bad

2. I prefer to use medical resources as a reference, and actual studies. Not that I don't love P&T

Are we ready to wake up and smell the coffee yet? Caffeine is safer than MJ.

 

[SteveGrenard]

What form does legal cannabis come in? Pill?

Marinol. It is a synthetic THC:

http://www.ardpark.org/reference/marinol.htm

 

[knot]

Look at where alcohol and tobacco are placed:



source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm


There's a medical MJ user in this video that has been smoking perhaps a hundred joints a day for many years and has no medical problems attributed to MJ:

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...MQR1yg&usg=AL29H21SNul5ZLdRoyqP5kiiZDyUyjirsA
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...iIPLh0&usg=AL29H22-T33hV_diZityTOnnjbhHBgUmZg
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...ADig8w&usg=AL29H225622tfaxhRJ1PaiFOjvI0Gr5aLQ

 

[knot]

Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.

Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Just for the record, I don't smoke pot.

 

[Schneibster]

Umm, got a problem, Eos. Is any of this backed up, not by the unsourced statements you've given links to so far, but by real properly done medical research, published in peer reviewed journals?

I'm asking because the answer, to the best of my knowledge, is, "No."

Estimates of the tar in marijuana are based on unbelievable consumption levels, far beyond what anyone in their right mind would use. I have used it extensively, and in general, once or twice a week, and about one or two hits per use- not bong hits, but quick puffs on a pipe or a joint- far less, and so much less that I have a great deal of trouble imagining it equals a single coffin nail, much less a full pack. The tar from a pack consumed over an evening causes me distress; my experience simply doesn't jibe with what your sources are saying.

Recently (over six months) I haven't been able to get any, and it hasn't bothered me much, nor did it at any point. I had to give up hard liquor, and that was more difficult- and cigarettes are absolutely the worst, I still can't get rid of the habit, and it's slowly killing me. I certainly didn't experience any withdrawal symptoms, and neither did my wife who used it more extensively than me.

My personal experience says your sources are wrong, and the fact that I don't see a realistic peer-reviewed study among them only reinforces that view. When my circumstances change and it's available again, I'll use it, moderately, sparingly, as I always have, and without a qualm based on what I've seen so far.

You're not a woo, so if you have something more to bring to the table than moral indignation, by all means I'm not so set on it that I'll ignore you. But what I've seen so far doesn't meet the criteria you've otherwise met on other subjects.

Now, all of that said, there are the following considerations:
1. I don't believe use by non-adults is appropriate, or even safe.
2. I think that people with a predilection to mental health problems need to avoid it; there is at least some evidence to suggest that it can worsen these types of conditions.
3. Cheap pot is a bad idea, because then you have to smoke the incredible amounts some of the tar studies cite in order to get high.
4. It's possible to overdose, or at least get an amount that will make you unable to cope with things mentally, far more easily by eating it than by smoking it; it nevertheless takes quite a bit either way, and if you eat enough to have a problem, it will most likely make you sick.

So if you want to have a dialog, by all means.

 

[Jeff Corey]

1. Smoking it less often is not safer:

a) because the side effects are far more horrible.
b) because the accumulation of tar and other carcinogens is far greater (smoking MJ five times a week is the equivalent to smoking an entire pack of cigs per day)
c)the addiction is just as bad.

Addiction is not a term most scientists use. Tolerance, physical dependence and psychological dependence are used instead. Tolerance is needing more of the drug to get high or low, physical dependence is needing the drug to avoid withdrawal symptoms and psychological dependence is more vaguely defined as "just makes you feel better" so you do it.

Maryjane has not been shown to produce the first two of these.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms are noted. 3 out of 3 verified.

Unsourced? Oy. Fine, I'll dig through all the studies and post some. sheesh. Basically the side effects are now common knowledge, but surrre, make me dig through boring articles that aren't in layman's terms.

*rolls eyes*

Just give me a few minutes.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Psychiatric problems, including paranoia:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3098
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6745

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Studies of [3H]CP-55940 Binding in the Human Central Nervous System: Regional Specific Changes in Density of Cannabinoid-1 Receptors Associated With Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use
Author: B Dean, S Sundram, R Bradbury, E Scarr and D Copolov.
Publisher: Neuroscience Vol. 103, No. 1, pp 9-15, 2001
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Cannabis and Psychosis
Author: Wayne Hall
Publisher: 1998, 17, pp433-444, Drug and Alcohol Review (published by the Australian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs)
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Cannabis Use and Psychosis: A Review Of Clinical and Epidemiological Evidence
Author: Wayne Hall and Louisa Degenhardt
Presented at the Cannabis and Psychosis Conference in Melbourne, Victoria, 1999.
[/FONT]

There's one more potential problem to add to those already known about marijuana: the ingredient that gives it its kick, also influences tumor growth. According to researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 'promotes tumor growth.' ​

The finding has implications for cancer patients who use marijuana to fight chemotherapy-induced nausea. Researchers suggest that tumor growth may result from using marijuana.
And if that were not enough, the authors add, 'four times as much tar is deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of marijuana than from that of a comparable amount of tobacco, thus amplifying respiratory exposure to the cancer-causing substances in marijuana smoke.'
SOURCE: 2000 July - Journal of Immunology

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Research has shown that cannabis produces acute side effects that are within the range of side effects tolerated for other medicinal drugs. Acute side effects relate mainly to psychological effects (cognitive impairment, altered perception) and circulation (decrease of blood pressure). New research adds to the evidence of cannabis’s interaction with other medicinal drugs, effects on cognitive function, and increased risk of heart attack.

http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_acute.html

There's one more potential problem to add to those already known about marijuana: the ingredient that gives it its kick, also influences tumor growth. According to researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 'promotes tumor growth.'​

The finding has implications for cancer patients who use marijuana to fight chemotherapy-induced nausea.
And if that were not enough, the authors add, 'four times as much tar is deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of marijuana than from that of a comparable amount of tobacco, thus amplifying respiratory exposure to the cancer-causing substances in marijuana smoke.'
SOURCE: 2000 July - Journal of Immunology

Paranoia, psychosis:
http://www.drugwatch.org/research/marijuanamentalillness.htm

In the study, THC induced temporary responses similar to the three domains of schizophrenia: positive symptoms such as paranoia and disorganization of thinking, negative symptoms such as blunted affect and reduced spontaneity, and cognitive deficits such as memory lapses.

http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_fw04/rounds.html

Withdrawal:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVol15N1/Evidence.html

NIDA-supported researchers at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, and Columbia University in New York City have shown that individuals who regularly smoke marijuana experience withdrawal symptoms after they stop smoking the drug.

Mood-Stabilizing Drug Blocks Cannabis Withdrawal Symptoms, U of S Study Finds

http://announcements.usask.ca/news/archive/2001/11/moodstabilizing.html

Marijuana Withdrawal Syndrome a Real Entity

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/459885


http://www.vitabeat.com/new-study-r...-users-who-quit-experience-withdrawal/v/5594/

One study, described on page 2050, indicates that marijuana withdrawal activates the same stress system in the brain triggered by withdrawal of opiates and alcohol, while the other, reported on page 2048, indicates that marijuana activates the same reward pathway as heroin.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5321/1967




Basically, if you are using the stuff you will get cognitive symptoms (including paranoia), you will have decreased blood to the brain, and other effects.

If you stop smoking it, then all the effects will usually dissipate, but do expect some physical and psychological effects of withdrawal.

People who are at risk of more permanent psychosis will experience worse symptoms if they smoke MJ. Avoiding MJ is quite important if you have a family history of mental illness.

Smoking MJ is not benign, nor is it "safer" than tobacco use.

Not smoking anything is your best bet.

Medical THC is not usually smoked because dosage is difficult to monitor that way, and there are other side effects that pill form does not have.

 

[Schneibster]

Ummm, that's pretty much what I said, Eos.

"They found that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder (a milder version of schizophrenia) at age 26 than non-users.

But when the number of psychotic symptoms at age 11 was controlled for, this increased risk dropped to become non-significant. This suggests that people already at greater risk of later developing mental health problems are also more likely to smoke cannabis.

The total number of high quality studies on cannabis use and mental health disorders remains small, stress Rey and Tennant. And it is still not clear whether cannabis can cause these conditions in people not predisposed by genetic factors, for example, to develop them."

"The definition of psychosis used in the study was very broad, including occasional symptoms that would not require hospitalisation. Even so, van Os thinks the results have public health implications. “If you have a personal or family history of mental illness, you’re at risk of negative effects of cannabis smoking,” he says.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope in the UK, agrees: "Frequent use, a predisposition to mental health problems and starting at an early age all increase the risk of adverse effects. This research underlines that there are potentially serious health risks associated with cannabis use, particularly for young people.”

Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, notes that cannabis smoking accounts for about 8% of serious cases of psychosis."

My emphasis in all cases.

Your three additional titles emphasize this, but do not provide evidence to support other claims you made.

You provided a quote that claims both increase in tumor risk in already diagnosed tumor patients, and claims four times more tar than a comparable amount of tobacco, but does not either give a source, or show that a comparable amount of pot has to be smoked for the desired clinical effect, or even that 25% as much as tobacco is commonly smoked (around a pack a day- that would be about five joints, an amount I have not smoked at one sitting or even in one day, ever in my life). Without more text, I cannot evaluate the study, and I also can't evaluate any of the others to see what controls were used, or what procedures were used, or what proper evidence was provided.

Your assumption that I am incapable of evaluating the evidence for myself and coming to conclusions is, frankly, insulting. I'll overlook it, but you need to do better than this if you want to present evidence that is convincing. So far, what I see is what I already said, and is not what you claimed earlier. So at this point, I have to say that my decisions are unchanged, and I still consider your earlier posts to be emotional outbursts, not calmly reasoned conclusions drawn from compelling evidence.

I will of course continue to evaluate what you present; you have proven yourself a good source for information in the past. But right now, what you're doing is damaging your credibility in my eyes.

 

[Schneibster]

I started writing after the first two, and before the last one. So here's a reply to that one.

From your second reference, the whole paragraph, emphasis mine:
"Moderate smoking of cannabis increases the risk of a heart attack for middle-aged and elderly users during the first hour after using the drug, a study published in 2001 says (Mittleman et al. 2001).
...
Murray Mittleman, a professor at Harvard Medical School and director of cardiovascular epidemiology at Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Centre, and his colleagues wrote in their publication that smoking marijuana is 'a rare trigger of acute myocardial infarction.' He noted that cannabis was about as risky as taking a walk for an active person with heart disease, or as sex for a patient with sedentary life style."

So much for "increased risk of heart attack."

I'm sorry, but I'm singularly unwilling to take the statements of the National Institute on Drug Abuse's statements as fact when they contradict my own experience, particularly when they do so dramatically. I strongly suspect an agenda at work, and note that claims of aggression are supported only by abstract stating there is an increase, without any statement of the magnitude. This suggests that the magnitude is only barely above the lowest level measurable, or perhaps "in the grass," i.e., not necessarily separable from other potential environmental factors that cannot be controlled for.

In the other study, again, no quantification is provided in the abstract. Eos, when people have significant clinical findings, they report their magnitude in the abstract of the paper; when they don't, they don't, and you have to read through it to find out it's on the close order of 0.1%, or 1 in 1000.

Sorry, but again, I simply don't see this as compelling evidence. I don't see controls for behavior, and I strongly suspect that testing protocols and human experimentation protocols would not allow for proper control. I also suspect bias, particularly when strong results are stated in abstracts without quantification. This strikes me badly.

One of your references contained the following information:

"Bob Stephens, a Virginia Tech psychologist and editor of the book 'Cannabis Dependence,' conducted treatment studies of marijuana addiction, and was quoted in a USA Today article as saying, "There's never any shortage of people who meet this definition."

Neato. What an authoritative source. USA Today. I get all my medical information from there. NOT.

I don't know of anyone who thinks smoking pot is safer than cigarettes. What I saw was claims it's safer than alcohol, and I'd have to agree with that. I don't say it's safe; by most doctors' standards, no form of indulgence in psychoactive compounds is safe. And I'd have to agree with that. It is, however, relatively benign as such things go, and nothing you've said here has changed my mind about that. I accept the very small risk involved. I think it's smaller than the risk I take drinking a shot of hard liquor. And again, nothing you've said dissuades me from that evaluation.

Your use of large font indicates strong emotional content, and I re-assert that this is primary prima facie evidence of a lack of critical thinking. I suggest you read what I have posted much more carefully, and read your references more carefully as well. You are reacting, not thinking. Please think.

 

[Lonewulf]

Eos, when people have significant clinical findings, they report their magnitude in the abstract of the paper; when they don't, they don't, and you have to read through it to find out it's on the close order of 0.1%, or 1 in 1000.

While there's probably some reason for this, I can't help but feel that this is somewhat frustrating, and possibly even misleading for those that rely on the abstracts.

Putting the magnitude in the abstract, even for not very significant findings, would be preferable IMO.

 

[knot]

Not that I don't love P&T

Hehe, glad you said that. They are two of some of my favorite skeptics.

 

[Schneibster]

And by the way, if it's safer than alcohol, are you certain that your assertion that it shouldn't be legalized will hold water?

 

[calebprime]

Psychiatric problems, including paranoia:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3098
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6745

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Studies of [3H]CP-55940 Binding in the Human Central Nervous System: Regional Specific Changes in Density of Cannabinoid-1 Receptors Associated With Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use
...[/FONT]

I see that this study looks at specific receptors, but I can't help wondering, in a commonsense way, how much of that paranoia is just reasonable anxiety associated with doing something that is disapproved of, that is expensive, all because it is illegal.

Legalize it, and you solve many problems, and create many more. MJ-related crimes for money disappear, but routine MJ-related stupidity, sloth, artistic pretention, and overeating increases. Weed quickly loses any cache it had and becomes something that only old Bohos and sick people use.

This is as close as I get to a woo theory: So much money is being made off of marijuana because the price is high, that it would be a real shock to the system if it were legalized and the price crashed. So...um....

 

[joobz]

Not smoking anything is your best bet.

Medical THC is not usually smoked because dosage is difficult to monitor that way, and there are other side effects that pill form does not have.

I haven't followed all the text since yesterday, but I need to add to this.

For the effects of THC, often times rapid response is desired. For this reason, inhaled, nasal or buccal administrations may be best. I'm thinking a powdered inhaler form may be the best alternative over that of the smoking and pill. You can maintain a metered dose. The inhalation pen can be designed to limit the number of doses over a given period. The powdered formulation can provide a fast release response coupled with a slow release to provide stable therapeutic levels.