Is Marijuana Harmless?

[Georg]

As I said, no it does't.

It was meant different. Are there chemicals that are created by humans that don´t occur in plants as well? If yes, would it make sense to say that those are more dangerous? Does, for example, LSD occur in plants?

 

[Cuddles]

It was meant different. Are there chemicals that are created by humans that don´t occur in plants as well? If yes, would it make sense to say that those are more dangerous? Does, for example, LSD occur in plants?

Yes, there are chemicals created by humans that don't occur in plants. No, it makes no sense to treat them any differently or to say that they are more dangerous. Bear in mind that some plants have spent millions of years evolving things to kill us. Just because it is in a plant does not mean it is good for us. As I said earlier, if something affects the body in a certain way then it affects the body in a certain way, regardless of where it came from. Botulinum toxin is just about the most deadly poison known, yet it is entirely natural. Aspirin is entirely man-made, but it seems every year a new beneficial effect is discovered. All we can say is that some chemicals are dangerous, regardless of where they come from.

LSD is synthesised from lysergic acid made by a fungus.

 

[Georg]

Yes, there are chemicals created by humans that don't occur in plants. No, it makes no sense to treat them any differently or to say that they are more dangerous. Bear in mind that some plants have spent millions of years evolving things to kill us. Just because it is in a plant does not mean it is good for us. As I said earlier, if something affects the body in a certain way then it affects the body in a certain way, regardless of where it came from. Botulinum toxin is just about the most deadly poison known, yet it is entirely natural. Aspirin is entirely man-made, but it seems every year a new beneficial effect is discovered. All we can say is that some chemicals are dangerous, regardless of where they come from.

LSD is synthesised from lysergic acid made by a fungus.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. That was the kind of answer I was hoping for.

The first poll that I mentioned can be found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73620

So I´m not sure if opening the same one again really makes sense, but I voted anyway.

 

[l0rca]

I think it's obvious that he wasn't under the influence during the moments he was writing.

I pointed it out to retort what I quoted, which doesn't have to do with being high while pining towards goals.

Also, I don't see how it's obvious that he "wasn't under the influence during the moments he was writing."

 

[joobz]

Bolding in the quote is mine.

With my edit I took back the term aggressive. I did that clearly before you answered again. I admitted I was wrong. Not justified? That´s easy. As written before, you said I pretended that weed gives “special powers”. I didn´t. It was your wrong interpretation. So it was not justified. Would you please admit that?

There is nothing to admit. I commented on your point. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how pot is different from video games, music, hiking, in its ability to inspire.

The inspiration part: If you read post 243 you´ll see that there actually is a reason to assume that he saw this drug as something inspiring. Or do I misunderstand the word “insight”?

And pot was different in this effect than ANYTHING else? I've said all along it isn't unique in the concept. We can find inspiration in anything. Because 1 smart guy used it, it means it should be legal?

The Charles Manson argument is quite weak as long as you don´t show evidence about him saying the weed inspired him to do what he did.

Not at all. A quote is anecdotal evidence. I countered with anecdotes. I can (if you wish) grab quotes from Dahmer on how he used pot to lure his victims. What would this prove? If you wish to support the notion that pot is unique in it's ability to inspire or generate new ideas, please provide the experimental evidence. Not stories.

 

[joobz]

But I don´t agree on that one. As long as it is supported by evidence, there´s nothing wrong with it and it even strengthens the argument. And cannabis has a lot of potential for medical use. Evidence?

http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/nav/home-science.htm

Just click the second link on that page and read a bit.

Sure, there are potential medical uses. What does this have to do with recreational use? How does medical acceptance help your case?

 

[Georg]

You like your false accusations, don´t you?
I nowhere said that weed would be superior to other stimulants. If you think so, show me the post where I did. And you didn´t comment on my point but on your wrong interpretation of it. If not, show me.......
I also didn´t say that the inspiration would be the reason to legalise it. If you think otherwise, show me......
And where is the evidence Manson was inspired by weed? Show me.....
The quotes of Sagan can be read in various texts. Where are the ones of Manson? Show me.....
Even if there are some, what does that have to do with what I said? I showed evidence that it was inspiring for Sagan, no more, no less. The rest seems to be in your mind.

 

[joobz]

Yes, there are chemicals created by humans that don't occur in plants. No, it makes no sense to treat them any differently or to say that they are more dangerous. Bear in mind that some plants have spent millions of years evolving things to kill us. Just because it is in a plant does not mean it is good for us. As I said earlier, if something affects the body in a certain way then it affects the body in a certain way, regardless of where it came from. Botulinum toxin is just about the most deadly poison known, yet it is entirely natural. Aspirin is entirely man-made, but it seems every year a new beneficial effect is discovered. All we can say is that some chemicals are dangerous, regardless of where they come from.

LSD is synthesised from lysergic acid made by a fungus.

To continue this point, poly(ethylene glycol) (with a MW>1000) is manmade and probably one of the safest substances known to man. The body,generally, just ignores it and treats it like water. It's used in personal lubricants, haircare products, mouthwashes and is used to coat proteins for injection to reduce the immune response and extend the pharmacokinetics of drugs. So, yes, chemicals are chemicals, regardless of where they come from.

 

[Georg]

Sure, there are potential medical uses. What does this have to do with recreational use? How does medical acceptance help your case?

It would help because there would be more general acceptance of the stuff, which would make legalisation easier. No more time now, I´ll look again tomorrow.

 

[joobz]

You like your false accusations, don´t you?
I nowhere said that weed would be superior to other stimulants. If you think so, show me the post where I did.

Then what's the point of asking:

But maybe it inspired him a bit?

And you didn´t comment on my point but on your wrong interpretation of it. If not, show me.......
I also didn´t say that the inspiration would be the reason to legalise it. If you think otherwise, show me......

Than what's the point of harping on the subject if it is only inspirational?

And where is the evidence Manson was inspired by weed? Show me.....
The quotes of Sagan can be read in various texts. Where are the ones of Manson? Show me.....

Anacedotes are anacedotes....

Even if there are some, what does that have to do with what I said? I showed evidence that it was inspiring for Sagan, no more, no less. The rest seems to be in your mind.

Your attitude hurts your case....whatever that may be.

 

[joobz]

It would help because there would be more general acceptance of the stuff, which would make legalisation easier. No more time now, I´ll look again tomorrow.

I recognize that this is the belief, but I do not see any reason to assume it or even count on it. Morphine is a perfect example of a drug with clinical use but with no chance for it to be available for recreational use.
I'm for bringing it to the clinic*, but this is a completely seperate issue from recreational use.


*smoking a joint has inherent hurdles in prescription. When we create a drug, we want to acheive some pharmacological action. this action is tied directly to the level of drug at the site of action. (most common measure of this is the blood levels for systemically available drugs). As such, dosage forms are highly regulated for their API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) content. Much of the work a pharmaceutical company does is to ensure that the amount of drug in a single pill, a single spray of an inhaler, in an injection is as consistent as possible. When this practice was adopted, medicinal therapy success and reproducibility went through the roof. I do not see us going back to grinding herbs and poltices for medicine.

The variability in active compounds in pot from plant to plant, even in well controlled growth conditions, prevent smoking it from being an acceptable means of regulated delivery. The drug would need to be extracted and then reformulated to ensure a constant dose. If pot became legal for medical use, it won't be in the joint or bong hit form. Most likely, it'd be in either a controlled dose liquid inhaler (like asthma medicine), a powdered inhalation/controlled delivery form (like the insulin inhalers coming to market), or even a buccal/sublingual dosage (like the quick disolve tablets or breathe strips).

 

[Cuddles]

The variability in active compounds in pot from plant to plant, even in well controlled growth conditions, prevent smoking it from being an acceptable means of regulated delivery.

In addition to this point, smoking is bad for you. No matter how much you argue about marijuana not being as bad as tobacco, the fact is that our lungs are designed for air, not to have smoke and particulates sucked into them. If a person is ill, the last thing you want to do is prescribe a method of delivery that is known to cause many problems all of its own. If any of the chemicals in marijuana were to enter mainstream they would be given as a drug, in the same way that we give people morphine rather than telling them to smoke poppies.

 

[joobz]

In addition to this point, smoking is bad for you. No matter how much you argue about marijuana not being as bad as tobacco, the fact is that our lungs are designed for air, not to have smoke and particulates sucked into them. If a person is ill, the last thing you want to do is prescribe a method of delivery that is known to cause many problems all of its own. If any of the chemicals in marijuana were to enter mainstream they would be given as a drug, in the same way that we give people morphine rather than telling them to smoke poppies.

Exactly. Although, particulate matter isn't the inherent danger, it is the physiochemical properties of the particulate matter..But I digress.


People forget that Marinol(R) is an FDA approved form of THC. Pot is already seeing clinical use for the indications listed for pot. The reason why it's efficacy sucks compared to a joint is due to the route of administration. You can't cure nausea if you can't keep the pill in your belly long enough to see action. If the makers of Marinol reformulated it into a buccal or sublingual form, I think it's efficacy would greatly increase.

 

[Dancing David]

Trying to be psychic again: I´d say he meant the difference between drugs/chemicals that occur in plants and artificial drugs/chemicals that don´t.
I don´know if that distinction makes any sense. Does somebody know?

No alcohol is natural, cocaine is natural, heroin is processed natural from opium, and plenty of poisons are natural.

Zoloft ain't natural and it doesn't give me headaches like St. John's Wort.

 

[dlorde]

I read about a Swedish study some years ago (sorry, I don't have the reference, but I expect it's online somewhere...) that tested drivers on a driving simulator, stoned and straight. They found that stoned drivers tended to be far more cautious than normal, and this countered their slightly slower reactions. The conclusion was that the safety driving was not significantly impaired. However, I don't recall what doses were involved. Most stoners I know prefer not to drive stoned because it makes them feel anxious.

 

[Cuddles]

I read about a Swedish study some years ago (sorry, I don't have the reference, but I expect it's online somewhere...) that tested drivers on a driving simulator, stoned and straight. They found that stoned drivers tended to be far more cautious than normal, and this countered their slightly slower reactions. The conclusion was that the safety driving was not significantly impaired. However, I don't recall what doses were involved. Most stoners I know prefer not to drive stoned because it makes them feel anxious.

On a similar note, old people also act much more cautiously to counter the effect of their worse reactions. However, there is a point where their caution itself actually becomes a danger. How many of us haven't seen an old person driving along at 20mph in a 40mph limit? Or taking hours to pull away at a junction because they're too nervous about it being safe? I don't know what the equivalent level of marijuana would need to be, but just being cautious does not make you safe.

 

[dlorde]

... Aspirin is entirely man-made, but it seems every year a new beneficial effect is discovered.

It is entirely man made now, but it is a synthesised version of salicylic acid - the active ingredient of a pain-killing anti-inflammatory preparation made from willow tree bark since ancient times.

Incidentally, although more beneficial effects seem to be discovered at time passes, more dangers are also discovered - it seems to have more warnings of its various dangers in the pharmaceutical reference books than almost else...

Contrast this popular medication with cannabis, which is pretty much the least toxic pharmacologically active substance known. You can't eat enough to do you serious harm - unlike sugar, salt, water, bread, cheese, chips... mmm, getting hungry now

 

[drkitten]

It is entirely man made now, but it is a synthesised version of salicylic acid - the active ingredient of a pain-killing anti-inflammatory preparation made from willow tree bark since ancient times.

In the rather limited sense that "synthesized version" means "a completely novel chemical that has never been found in nature and was specifically developed to avoid many of the problems with the `natural' original."

Aspirin is not salicylic acid. It is acetylsalicylic acid; with an acetyl group substituting for (IIRC) a hydroxyl group. And it's precisely the unnatural neutralization of this hydroxyl group that makes it almost immeasurably safer and more effective.

 

[dlorde]

In the rather limited sense that "synthesized version" means "a completely novel chemical that has never been found in nature and was specifically developed to avoid many of the problems with the `natural' original."

Aspirin is not salicylic acid. It is acetylsalicylic acid; with an acetyl group substituting for (IIRC) a hydroxyl group.

Ouch - seem to have touched a nerve... Mea culpa - I said it was a 'version' of salicylic acid, which was perhaps not precise enough. My point was that the 'original' was derived from a plant source, as is the case with many modern drugs.

And it's precisely the unnatural neutralization of this hydroxyl group that makes it almost immeasurably safer and more effective.

"Almost immeasurably safer"?

From the BMA Guide To Medicines & Drugs:

O.D. danger rating: High - for restlesness, stomach pain, ringing in ears, blurred vision, vomiting, take emergency action.
Common effects: Nausea, vomiting, gastric bleeding.
Rare effects: Rash, breathlessness/wheezing - stop taking, call doctor now.
Can cause Reyes disease.
Special Precautions: Consult doctor if : kidney/liver problems, asthma, nasal polyps, clotting disorder, ulcer, other medications.
Children under 12 - close medical supervision
Pregnancy - not recommended
Alcohol - avoid
Interactions: anticoagulants, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, gout meds, oral antidiabetics.

If this is "almost immeasurably safer" than the plant remedy, one wonders how it ever came to be so popular

 

[drkitten]

Ouch - seem to have touched a nerve... Mea culpa - I said it was a 'version' of salicylic acid, which was perhaps not precise enough. My point was that the 'original' was derived from a plant source, as is the case with many modern drugs.

Yes. And the new, synthetic, version, was designed specifically because the plant-derived drug was both unsafe and ineffective.

"Almost immeasurably safer"?

Yes.

If this is "almost immeasurably safer" than the plant remedy, one wonders how it ever came to be so popular

Becauase you haven't investigated just how unsafe the original version was. Kidney failure, for example, does not routinely happen as a consequence of taking a therepeutic dose of the synthetic version.