Marijuana is harmless. Right?

[rockinkt]

It also doesn’t say it wouldn’t. It’s looking at the current situation; a lot of the harm due to heroin and other drugs is because they are illegal. The drugs are contaminated, the prices are high, and crime is committed to pay for them. A lot of those harms would not ensue if the drugs were legalised. I’m not saying it would be good for everyone, but looking at places like Portugal, it seems likely that overall harm is reduced by legalisation.

Please look again at Portugal. Legalization is the incorrect word and decriminalization is a only a small part of how they successfully deal with illegal drug use. Without the huge emphasis on treatment and rehab their program would not be successful.

The police still look for drugs and drug use and arrest individuals even for amounts that are considered for personal use and that is very important and an integral part of the process. After arrest for personal drug possession - the person must appear before a special medical board for assessment and the panel refers them out to appropriate support agencies to better assist the individual and remove any barriers to achieving recovery.
Occasionally they may have to pay a small fine or do a few hours of community service.

If someone is caught with more than what’s deemed “reasonable” for ten days of personal use (e.g., one gram of heroin, 10 g of opium, 25 g of cannabis) they’re sent into the criminal justice system, where they can be prosecuted and sentenced under standard trafficking laws.

https://www.edgewoodhealthnetwork.com/blog/drug-decriminalization-the-success-of-the-portugal-model/

 

[Carrot Flower King]

My personal experience of knowing long term potheads is that they changed a lot in a decade.
Some becoming totally useless and on the verge of homeless, others changing interests and ambitions for less spectacular goals in life.

Mostly college degrees in management turning into part time waitress or dishwasher.

It didn't kill anyone per se but it was life changing in downward ways. Rather sad to watch with a few.

That's yer problem, right there: qualifications in management. Sooner or later they were always going to realise that those were fundamentally useless and that serving or dish washing is more benficial to society as a whole.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Not sure the causality isn't borked here. Can you affirm that some change in attitude/worldview isn't the cause of all the changes? Or, say, that depression or disappointment with life outcomes isn't the precipitating cause? As for the downward quality of employment trend, that is common to the entire genpop since 1980, so hard to separate out as attributable to MJ. In short, self-medication may be occasioned by some other factor.

Not to mention that a lot of people whose alcohol consumption is high enough that you'd consider it a defining characteristic are likely to have less than spectacular careers (of course there will be exceptions in both cases & often in specific fields).

 

[zooterkin]

Please look again at Portugal. Legalization is the incorrect word and decriminalization is a only a small part of how they successfully deal with illegal drug use. Without the huge emphasis on treatment and rehab their program would not be successful.

Yes, I know; let's not split hairs about legalisation or decriminalisation (and I didn't say which Portugal was doing, only said that what they were doing suggested legalisation might work). My point is that a lot of the current harm is because of the way users of illegal drugs are treated, not the drugs themselves. I'm not saying they are harm-free, but that a lot of the harm is not inherent in the drug use itself, so changing the legal status wouldn't simply increase overall harm by potentially widening the numbers of people taking the drugs, there would be a potential reduction in the amount of harm to each user.

 

[EHocking]

I guess if one has to explain they are being facetious then they did a poor job of it.

Tru dat.

Perhaps I should have said swimming pool instead of gun.

 

[Timur]

I agree with zooterkin on this one. Even if there's majority consensus that a certain behavior is objectionable, after 30, 40 years of the 'War on Drugs', it seems obvious to me that just throwing people in jail isn't the answer. Perhaps the Restorative Justice model pioneered by Howard Zehr might be more sensible (for this as well as other issues).

 

[psionl0]

How exactly would they get that evidence? Since marijuana has mostly been illegal, how do you track users long term? Just ask them? We know from diet studies that self reporting is inaccurate, and we don’t know what else marijuana users may have been doing. Separating out different effects (other drug use, self-selection bias, etc) is really hard. We have some data, but it’s really not very good data.

Crystal meth would have the same sort of evidentiary problem but it didn't take long to see that it is a very harmful drug. If marijuana had serious long term harmful effects then this would also become manifest as its use was popularized.

 

[HHellpop]

How exactly would they get that evidence? Since marijuana has mostly been illegal, how do you track users long term? Just ask them? We know from diet studies that self reporting is inaccurate, and we don’t know what else marijuana users may have been doing. Separating out different effects (other drug use, self-selection bias, etc) is really hard. We have some data, but it’s really not very good data.

I have always been 100% open and honest with all primary care doctors about my marijuana use. In some cases, I've been told "I don't need to know that." They quickly became my ex-doctors. And I would be the same with any researchers asking me about it. They are not law enforcement, nor are they going to rat me out to them. I also do not do any other drugs, with the minor exception of 5 alcoholic drinks or less per year. While I am speaking for myself here, I know many of my friends feel the same and are also single "drug of choice" people.

Whether we are in the minority or not I can't say. But what I do recall from my time as a research assistant was the fact that it is a Schedule 1 controlled substance with heaps of regulations and ramifications meant less researchers willing to take it on. I believe that likely had a more stifling effect than lying potheads. That was 30 years ago, and while the federal status is unchanged, there's no question that decriminalization and legalization at the state level has created a more research-friendly environment.

 

[HHellpop]

For my part I believe that it should be fully as legal as alcohol and tobacco - ie, age-restricted and available only from licensed premises. It makes no sense to me that pot is illegal while alcohol and tobacco - two much more harmful drugs - are not.

"1000% agreed!", said the guy who quit 2 weeks ago in order to comply with his prospective employer's no-drug policy.

 

[HHellpop]

Crystal meth would have the same sort of evidentiary problem but it didn't take long to see that it is a very harmful drug. If marijuana had serious long term harmful effects then this would also become manifest as its use was popularized.

This, too.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Crystal meth would have the same sort of evidentiary problem but it didn't take long to see that it is a very harmful drug. If marijuana had serious long term harmful effects then this would also become manifest as its use was popularized.

What is meant by harm?

Harm to the consenting user is very different to broader societal harm.

Marijuana may have some long term negative health effects that we aren't aware of yet, but there doesn't seem to be very much acute, short term injury associated with even fairly heavy use.

I'm not aware of any evidence showing that people who are high on pot are causing much mayhem to broader society. You don't see drunk driving or violence deaths like you do with alcohol, or crimes of violence or property theft to feed addiction like opiates or other harder drugs.

Any negative health effects of pot are probably less severe than those of tobacco or alcohol, two substances that are lawful. It's hard to justify continued prohibition with what we know now.

 

[psionl0]

Harm to the consenting user is very different to broader societal harm.

I think that since this is in the Science, Mathematics and Technology thread, it is more about harm to the consenting user. The "wisdom" of prohibition backed by legal sanctions is more of a political issue.

I just get annoyed by hearing decade after decade that we "don't know enough about the long term effects" (as if that alone would justify prohibition). What are they expecting? That your head will explode if you use it long enough?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think that since this is in the Science, Mathematics and Technology thread, it is more about harm to the consenting user. The "wisdom" of prohibition backed by legal sanctions is more of a political issue.

I just get annoyed by hearing decade after decade that we "don't know enough about the long term effects" (as if that alone would justify prohibition). What are they expecting? That your head will explode if you use it long enough?

I would be surprised if there isn't some long term lung damage done by smoking pot long term. Not because of any particular danger of pot, but just because inhaling any smoke is probably unhealthy. There are probably better ways to experience THC than breathing in combustion products. Jury's still out about vaporizing, both for pot and just generally.

Edibles seems like a way to avoid any chronic lung damage, but my understanding is that the effect is quite different than smoking.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I just get annoyed by hearing decade after decade that we "don't know enough about the long term effects" (as if that alone would justify prohibition). What are they expecting? That your head will explode if you use it long enough?

They're just invoking a catch-22. Proper research into long-term effects isn't feasible as long as it's a prohibited substance, and it can't be legalized until there's proper research into long-term effects.

Just like we heard for years that it had to be illegal because it was a "gateway" to harder drugs... because the drug dealer you needed to find to get some probably also sold harder drugs.

 

[ahhell]

My understanding of some research that came out the other day (by which I mean some time in the last 20 years) is that pot can exacerbate the effects of schizophrenia, if you already suffer from it. This was widely misreported as pot can cause schizophrenia, which was not what the research said.

Possession of small amounts of pot where I live is now legal at a local level, though it remains illegal at the federal level, and sale of it is still illegal, so I wouldn't be able to acquire it legally anyway. Our pot laws are a bit mess, really.

My recollection is that there is a demonstrated correlation between schizophrenia and pot use but that any causal relation is not at all clear. That is, pot use might make schizophrenia worse, may trigger it, may just be self medication on the part of schizophrenics.

That being said, its pretty clear that pot is significantly less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco.

The latest research is that there is literally no safe level of alcohol consumption. The early research that suggested moderate consumption was healthy seems to the the result of not controlling for former alcoholics that gave up drinking. That made abstinence appear to shorten lives when it was really the previous heavy consumption.

So far, its seems the only ill health effects that are demonstrated to be linked to pot use are just due to smoke. Eat or vape* instead and that seems to go away. Worst case scenario, you get fat and lazy. Far better than fat and belligerent.

Also, prohibition generally leads to worse health effects like a rise in lead poisoning. Also tends to shift consumption to more concentrated forms. Its easier to ship and conceal than the less concentrated varieties.

This is definitely one of those issues where both sides drive me nuts. The bad arguments for prohibition are obvious but the pro side has always been peddling BS too. The Pot is the miracle cure for all your ills and the miracle fiber nonsense. I think there's less of that now that its been legalized in so many places.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not aware of any evidence showing that people who are high on pot are causing much mayhem to broader society. You don't see drunk driving or violence deaths like you do with alcohol

Alcohol is legal while pot is (mostly) not. Rates of stoned driving are likely to increase with legalization, so rates under conditions of illegality aren't good indicators of what it would be with legalization. And given that there is no easy test for marijuana intoxication levels as there is for alcohol, measuring how much pot contributes to accidents or even reckless driving is much harder to do than for alcohol. I don't have any reason to think it will be worse than alcohol, but I also don't have any reason to dismiss it as a concern.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

My recollection is that there is a demonstrated correlation between schizophrenia and pot use but that any causal relation is not at all clear. That is, pot use might make schizophrenia worse, may trigger it, may just be self medication on the part of schizophrenics.




This is definitely one of those issues where both sides drive me nuts. The bad arguments for prohibition are obvious but the pro side has always been peddling BS too. The Pot is the miracle cure for all your ills and the miracle fiber nonsense. I think there's less of that now that its been legalized in so many places.

MJ and mental health is a messy area: research has been of varying quality and problematic at times in terms of legal constraints...

IIRC (I'll try to look it up), it becomes complicated as different components of street MJ have different effects, in that THC is implicated in increasing risk of psychosis, while CBD can act as a protective factor.

The concept of self-medication is well known (many of us will have encountered it in day to day clinical practice) and researchers do try to allow for that as a potential confounder.

In broader health terms it would be very helpful to actually know one way or the other what, if any, health benefits there might be, but that will involve several governments, especially those of the US and UK, changing their stances on what is allowed. I'm not holding my breath on that.

 

[rockinkt]

Yes, I know; let's not split hairs about legalisation or decriminalisation (and I didn't say which Portugal was doing, only said that what they were doing suggested legalisation might work). My point is that a lot of the current harm is because of the way users of illegal drugs are treated, not the drugs themselves. I'm not saying they are harm-free, but that a lot of the harm is not inherent in the drug use itself, so changing the legal status wouldn't simply increase overall harm by potentially widening the numbers of people taking the drugs, there would be a potential reduction in the amount of harm to each user.

It is not splitting hairs to point out the huge difference between legalization and decriminalization. Conflating those two terms indicates a profound lack of understanding of the issue and indicates that your opinions are very uninformed.
The architect and current head of Portugal's drug program adamantly states that their program is not legalization and that legalization would not work.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

They're just invoking a catch-22. Proper research into long-term effects isn't feasible as long as it's a prohibited substance, and it can't be legalized until there's proper research into long-term effects.

Just like we heard for years that it had to be illegal because it was a "gateway" to harder drugs... because the drug dealer you needed to find to get some probably also sold harder drugs.

Yeah, because there are no countries in the world where Marijuana for personal use has been legal for many decades. After all that would attract countless tourists and be known.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Just like we heard for years that it had to be illegal because it was a "gateway" to harder drugs... because the drug dealer you needed to find to get some probably also sold harder drugs.

Yes, but that's why it should be legal, along with all other drugs. You see, alcohol is far more dangerous than pot, yet it is legal and will never be banned. Heroin is a bit more deadly, but only because its illegal! Cocaine is less addictive than tobacco and less deadly than alcohol. LSD is no more deadly than pot and much less addictive. No drug is so 'special' that it alone should be banned.

Pot is a gateway to other drugs because if you are taking drugs for the high then why not try them all? The main reason is simply that the better drugs are harder to get and more expensive due to stronger law enforcement. But if all drugs were made legal then getting a better high would be more accessible (which is a good thing, right?).

Caffeine is just as addictive as pot but much more deadly. Alcohol is even more deadly and more addictive. Yet both of these drugs are perfectly legal, cheap and readily available. It is totally unfair to ban LSD and cocaine but not alcohol and caffeine. The government should not be in the business of playing favorites, and people should have the freedom to find out which mind-altering drug is best for them. The idea that some drugs should be banned because they are harmful is bogus - either ban them all or make them all legal!