New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[RandFan]

Sorry, my sarcasm tags remark meant that sarcasm tags, if they existed, should have been inserted. It did not mean that I did not insert them because I was not meaning to be sarcastic.

I thought you were trying to be sarcastic. Perhaps my definition of sarcasm isn't the same as yours. Then again I can be awfully thick at times. Sorry.

 

[cosmicaug]

At one time, the sleeping pill Quaalude was as big a problem in the United States as heroin and cocaine. But then, in a matter of just a few years, it disappeared. If the successful strategy the DEA pursued in cracking down on Quaaludes had been followed when meth surfaced a few years later, experts say it is unlikely the meth epidemic would ever have happened.

I don't know how difficult is to manufacture methaqualone for a DIY enthusiast but I think it is fairly obvious that methamphetamine must be very easy to manufacture (see references to shake-n-bake). If the former is actually very difficult to manufacture, then the comparison between the two and the conclusion based on that comparison become ridiculous since the most important element of this strategy against quaaludes would have been, undoubtedly, taking them off the market. I ignore if this is the case. Maybe quaaludes are easy to manufacture, after all. I'm certainly not an organic chemist.

 

[cosmicaug]

I thought you were trying to be sarcastic. Perhaps my definition of sarcasm isn't the same as yours. Then again I can be awfully thick at times. Sorry.

The sarcasm was in considering that people often like to predict disaster if decriminalization or legalization policies are adopted (including at least one post on this thread) and in the fact that the implementation of this policy in Portugal is quite a few years old.

But I suppose that sarcasm must be like jokes and that one is not supposed to explain it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you suppose that people would be as willing to speed if the penalties more closely mirrored those for marijuana? We don't even have to use the official term addiction -- we can just say, "a behavior people are willing to continue in the face of very negative consequences." I believe you claimed there were no negative consequences, and that's why I brought it up.

And yes, I agree that most don't think they will be caught. But when they are, and when they've already suffered the consequences, the majority continue to use weed. Addiction could explain that, but isn't necessary. Human perversity or a drive toward freedom would work as well. I think it's as simple as, "I like getting high."

I was objecting to the idea that people can simply drop the behavior like changing dirty underwear. Even if they "can," demonstrably, they do not.



I don't dispute this either. I do not like most parallels made to other substances and think marijuana should be evaluated on it's own merits and faults.

On federal minimum sentencing, we are moving from the user's perspective to the dealers perspective. Again, I wouldn't claim that dealers are addicted to marijuana, but in it primarily for the money. This moves an offense from one of possession for personal use into another territory, doesn't it? One where the product isn't as important as the willingness to sell something illegal for profit.

The dealer class is certainly aware of how severe the penalties are and, if they aren't simply using weed for the good feelings it provides, how can they be viewed as anything other than a willful criminal intent on making money by way of great risk?

This is not to minimize the many cases of laws misapplied and resulting injustice. But we are talking about a whole class of crime, not cherry picking. I am not convinced that the majority of cases are of this type. We could look a few up if you like.

If someone sets out to move a pound or two of weed for profit, how is that different than doing it with any other illegal product? It could be elephant ivory for all I care -- they went in with eyes open and evil intent. Or do they have a justification I am overlooking?

I'm not quite sure where you are drifting with this. There is simply no comparison of pot 'addiction' and significantly destructive addictions like those to heroin and alcohol. Claiming lives are ruined by pot because of misguided mandatory sentencing therefore pot 'addiction' is equal to other destructive addictions simply goes against the evidence. Ask 100 people involved in drug treatment and 99 of them will say pot simply doesn't compare.

I don't want to give you the argument from authority but I don't have time for a literature search. I come from a family of alcoholics, I grew up in the drug era in the thick of it in LA, and I've worked a considerable amount in various aspects of drug treatment facilities as a nurse practitioner. Pot just isn't an evil addictive drug. Habit forming, yes. Probably bad for your lungs, and not good to drive under the influence of. But life destroying like heroin, meth, alcohol and crack cocaine, no, not even close.

If I had to categorize it in the scheme of things, it's closer to cigarettes than anything else in terms of harm.

 

[RandFan]

The sarcasm was in considering that people often like to predict disaster if decriminalization or legalization policies are adopted (including at least one post on this thread) and in the fact that the implementation of this policy in Portugal is quite a few years old.

But I suppose that sarcasm must be like jokes and that one is not supposed to explain it.

I understand you now. Thanks.

 

[marplots]

I'm not quite sure where you are drifting with this. There is simply no comparison of pot 'addiction' and significantly destructive addictions like those to heroin and alcohol. Claiming lives are ruined by pot because of misguided mandatory sentencing therefore pot 'addiction' is equal to other destructive addictions simply goes against the evidence. Ask 100 people involved in drug treatment and 99 of them will say pot simply doesn't compare.

I agree, but let me try to clear up where I've been confusing.
1) Comparisons that try to map marijuana onto other substances are misleading and often incorrect. This would be no different than comparing, say, antibiotics to psychiatric medications -- different chemical entities, different ways to dose, different outcomes. We are in complete agreement here, although I think others do want to compare because in some ways, marijuana comes off as less harmful than things we already allow.

2) Comparisons by policy and behavior. This works better because we can generalize. When all drugs in Schedule II are prosecuted similarly, it's fine to compare them. When human behaviors are similar, that's useful too. So, for example, if we are talking about someone committing a crime to make a buck, in the general sense, we don't care if they are embezzling from their employer or selling fake art -- as long as the focus is on committing a crime for money, the similarities might be relevant.

I don't want to give you the argument from authority but I don't have time for a literature search. I come from a family of alcoholics, I grew up in the drug era in the thick of it in LA, and I've worked a considerable amount in various aspects of drug treatment facilities as a nurse practitioner. Pot just isn't an evil addictive drug. Habit forming, yes. Probably bad for your lungs, and not good to drive under the influence of. But life destroying like heroin, meth, alcohol and crack cocaine, no, not even close.

If I had to categorize it in the scheme of things, it's closer to cigarettes than anything else in terms of harm.

I don't dispute this. In fact, I think it's wrong to say that any substance is inherently harmful, they are just molecules doing their thing. Even at the level of the user, I agree with NORML on their "responsible use" goal. But there's more on offer.

The underlying argument is about harm to society overall. I'll give you what may seem a silly comparison, but might make it clearer.

Pool halls are sometimes viewed as hang-outs for the less-than-savory and dens of iniquity. Before they became family friendly, many were smoke-filled hangouts for ne'er-do-wells and the "criminal element." I can remember at least one local fight to prevent a pool hall from opening up.

No one claims there's something about playing pool that makes anyone a miscreant, but the reputation arose of a link. If you wanted to find the loan shark or the juvenile delinquent, a pool hall was a good place to look.

A community might say, "Hey, we know there are people, good people, people like us who are solid citizens, who enjoy playing pool. But it's not worth the other stuff that comes with it and we are only pissing off these few, so we'll keep it out of our neighborhood."

Now, getting back to marijuana. Portugal was mentioned earlier as a place where decriminalization worked out. It's interesting to see that drugs are not legal there, but have a lower penalty for possession. Manufacture, sale and trafficking are still criminal. They've also added a huge amount of resources for treatment.

From Wiki: Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.

I have one question then. Why is marijuana use prohibited? Of the 80 countries listed in Wiki's entry on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country), all regulate and penalize marijuana at some level.

Explanations that revolve around US specific rationales shouldn't apply world wide, should they? Is there something about marijuana that makes it a target other than perceived harm?

 

[devnull]

I know a guy who has smoked it every single day for the past 40 or so years, and there's nothing wrong with OH MY GOD HE'S HERE WITH A GUN SOMEONE CALL THE

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree, but let me try to clear up where I've been confusing.
1) Comparisons that try to map marijuana onto other substances are misleading and often incorrect. This would be no different than comparing, say, antibiotics to psychiatric medications -- different chemical entities, different ways to dose, different outcomes. We are in complete agreement here, although I think others do want to compare because in some ways, marijuana comes off as less harmful than things we already allow.

2) Comparisons by policy and behavior. This works better because we can generalize. When all drugs in Schedule II are prosecuted similarly, it's fine to compare them. When human behaviors are similar, that's useful too. So, for example, if we are talking about someone committing a crime to make a buck, in the general sense, we don't care if they are embezzling from their employer or selling fake art -- as long as the focus is on committing a crime for money, the similarities might be relevant.



I don't dispute this. In fact, I think it's wrong to say that any substance is inherently harmful, they are just molecules doing their thing. Even at the level of the user, I agree with NORML on their "responsible use" goal. But there's more on offer.

The underlying argument is about harm to society overall. I'll give you what may seem a silly comparison, but might make it clearer.

Pool halls are sometimes viewed as hang-outs for the less-than-savory and dens of iniquity. Before they became family friendly, many were smoke-filled hangouts for ne'er-do-wells and the "criminal element." I can remember at least one local fight to prevent a pool hall from opening up.

No one claims there's something about playing pool that makes anyone a miscreant, but the reputation arose of a link. If you wanted to find the loan shark or the juvenile delinquent, a pool hall was a good place to look.

A community might say, "Hey, we know there are people, good people, people like us who are solid citizens, who enjoy playing pool. But it's not worth the other stuff that comes with it and we are only pissing off these few, so we'll keep it out of our neighborhood."

Now, getting back to marijuana. Portugal was mentioned earlier as a place where decriminalization worked out. It's interesting to see that drugs are not legal there, but have a lower penalty for possession. Manufacture, sale and trafficking are still criminal. They've also added a huge amount of resources for treatment.



I have one question then. Why is marijuana use prohibited? Of the 80 countries listed in Wiki's entry on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country), all regulate and penalize marijuana at some level.

Explanations that revolve around US specific rationales shouldn't apply world wide, should they? Is there something about marijuana that makes it a target other than perceived harm?

Pot was prohibited for racist and political reasons when the narcotics act was passed early in the last century.

Some substances are inherently harmful. Heroin, for example, is inherently harmful. Methadrine is inherently harmful. Alcohol is inherently harmful to about 10% of the population. Pot is not.

 

[marplots]

Pot was prohibited for racist and political reasons when the narcotics act was passed early in the last century.

Are you satisfied that this explains the legal status worldwide?

 

[cosmicaug]

Pot was prohibited for racist and political reasons when the narcotics act was passed early in the last century.

Are you satisfied that this explains the legal status worldwide?

Are you satisfied that the drug regulatory regimes around the world are independent events?

 

[Dancing David]

Are you using "physically addictive" to cover "addicted" or something else?

Well it also creates a false dualism and dichotomy that is meaningless, addictions are a behavioral disorder and while withdrawal symptoms may cause relapses they are not the primary driving factors of addiction.

I remember the famous 'cocaine is not physically addictive' , as well. It may not be but it can cause heart damage. Little rats allowed to takes cocaine at will all die within thirty days, a rat that can take heroin at will can live for many months.

Something to ponder when considering the meme of 'physical addiction', there is no such things some drugs have withdrawal syndromes and sequelae from chronic use, some don't. Marijuana use by its nature has a very long wash out as well, some one who smokes a lot of great weed will have THC metabolites in their system for at least thirty days.

It is not always the drugs effects that are the problems of addiction (although alcohol and cocaine have some horrible ones), it is the inability to function well in occupational, social and other spheres of life that define addiction. the substitution of social relationships with the drug addiction and the economic consequences of occupational dysfunction are the primary problems for addicts.

 

[Dancing David]

It was almost all gang violence, and that is fueled by gangs fighting over drug terriotory. The guns are purchased with drug money.

How do you think the gangs make money? Illegal drugs are their lifeblood. Just like illegal alcohol fueled the mafia wars of the 1920s.

Tha Gangster Disciples than you for your support.

And the Latin Kings...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well it also creates a false dualism and dichotomy that is meaningless, addictions are a behavioral disorder and while withdrawal symptoms may cause relapses they are not the primary driving factors of addiction....

While I agree with you, there is also a strong correlation. The physical addiction very likely is connected to the mechanisms of psychological craving. Certain drugs are believed to actually change the brain in significant ways and it is unclear what all is going on.

And as an aside, the physical addiction of cigarettes results in people going to the store at midnight if they run out. For heroin, it leads them to rob the minimart when they run out. I am not aware of many people who steal to support a pot habit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but of those who do steal to support pot habits, it's likely they also steal for reasons other than buying pot. In other words with pot it may be an association, with heroin, it clearly causes criminal behavior to support the addiction.

I remember the famous 'cocaine is not physically addictive' , as well. It may not be but it can cause heart damage. Little rats allowed to takes cocaine at will all die within thirty days, a rat that can take heroin at will can live for many months.

Something to ponder when considering the meme of 'physical addiction', there is no such things some drugs have withdrawal syndromes and sequelae from chronic use, some don't. Marijuana use by its nature has a very long wash out as well, some one who smokes a lot of great weed will have THC metabolites in their system for at least thirty days.

Anyone who has cared for infants born to heavy cocaine using mothers would argue with you on the "no withdrawal symptoms with cocaine" claim. I know that was initially thought, but upon more careful observation it turns out there are indeed significant withdrawal symptoms.

Anyone interested can do a PubMed search and find hundreds of studies like the following which appear in the first couple hits:

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor serum levels in cocaine-dependent patients during early abstinence.
Enhanced anxiety observed in cocaine withdrawn rats is associated with altered reactivity of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.
Treatment of cocaine withdrawal anxiety with guanfacine: relationships to cocaine intake and reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats.
Reversal of cocaine withdrawal-induced anxiety by ondansetron, buspirone and propranolol.

With cocaine addiction the withdrawal symptoms include significant anxiety. With pot, it's mild appetite suppression and not much else. I am not aware infants born to heavy pot users are particularly irritable after birth. Perhaps someone who was worked with at-risk newborns has some more current information than mine on that.

It is not always the drugs effects that are the problems of addiction (although alcohol and cocaine have some horrible ones), it is the inability to function well in occupational, social and other spheres of life that define addiction. the substitution of social relationships with the drug addiction and the economic consequences of occupational dysfunction are the primary problems for addicts

This^. You've done a better job here articulating the issue than I have.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I know a guy who has smoked it every single day for the past 40 or so years, and there's nothing wrong with OH MY GOD HE'S HERE WITH A GUN SOMEONE CALL THE

...and now, for the rest of the story.

devnull's friend walked in calmly with a gun. The gun was full of caulk. He stopped by for a quick bake session before fixing the tub. But...

The tub never got fixed! For some reason, they sat on the couch the whole day, playing video games on the big-screen teevee...

 

[Dancing David]

Ask 100 people involved in drug treatment and 99 of them will say pot simply doesn't compare.

did you ask the pot addicts? yes, there is no physical harm other than smoking, yet loss of relationships and employment is just as harmful.

 

[marplots]

Are you satisfied that the drug regulatory regimes around the world are independent events?

Yes, I'm relying on it to make the point. Is that a bad assumption on my part?

I'm arguing against a cause for prohibition that is US-centric. The substance being prohibited would, however, carry across into every country that regulates it because the substance is the same.

 

[RandFan]

did you ask the pot addicts? yes, there is no physical harm other than smoking, yet loss of relationships and employment is just as harmful.

What are the relative risks? Do we even know? How many relationships and careers are in jeopardy because of pot? Compared to alcohol, tobacco, religion, porn? It strikes me as an issue that is relatively low in risk but high in public concern.

What bothers me about this debate is that people are making arguments and assertions without knowing what the relative risks are. I don't know what they are and perhaps I'm naive but it seems to me that the relative risks of marijuana are extremely low compared to other activities that most of us simply don't give a **** about and will never give a **** about. It seems to me that this is one of those knee jerk issues that we simply must have an opinion on when in fact, statistically, it is one of the least important issues most of us will ever deal with. AFAIK, Making a decision to get into a car is far more statistically relevant to our health and safety than whether or not we smoke a joint.

Now, that's not to say that marijuana is benign or that it is wrong to discuss the health aspects of cannabis. It's only to say that in the grand scheme of things we spend far, far too much time and worry over something that for the vast majority of us won't amount to a hill of beans. JMO.

ETA: This wasn't a broadside against you David. I picked your post as a starting point to express my thoughts.

 

[marplots]

What are the relative risks? Do we even know? How many relationships and careers are in jeopardy because of pot? Compared to alcohol, tobacco, religion, porn? It strikes me as an issue that is relatively low in risk but high in public concern.

I think you're right. Perceived risk is much higher than actual risk. I also think what distinguishes marijuana from tobacco and alcohol in this is how popular the products are. Marijuana doesn't have the penetration and the numbers to really move the law much. It's only when advocates can recruit non-users (as with medical marijuana laws) that the landscape changes much. (Note: This might be changing radically, with 3 states having ballot issues this election that would put marijuana on par with alcohol at the state level.)

I'd put the situation on par with gambling in some respects. Generally poo-poo'ed and some examples of lives ruined, but overall largely harmless. The difference may be that I can't grow a casino in my spare bedroom.

That's a significant difference because it makes weed much harder to tax and control. Where I'm at, unlicensed gambling (sometimes called "gaming" in the statute) has some pretty harsh penalties:

(1) A person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $100,000.00, or both, and shall be barred from receiving or maintaining a [gaming] license for doing any of the following:

(a) Conducting a gambling operation where wagering is used or to be used without a license issued by the board...

Perhaps the larger question is on what grounds we should be able to control (or attempt to control) the behavior of others and on which side of the line weed falls.

Remember, saying the government is too harsh and the laws are too harsh is just another way of saying We the People in the collective do not approve. It really does come down to your neighbors getting in your business.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

......But...

The tub never got fixed! For some reason, they sat on the couch the whole day, playing video games on the big-screen teevee...

Urban myth. Surveys of wide sections of the population reveal millions smoke pot. Somehow they manage to complete college, practice law, design buildings, raise kids... whatever. If the urban myth were true the country would be full of rudderless zombies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

did you ask the pot addicts? yes, there is no physical harm other than smoking, yet loss of relationships and employment is just as harmful.

If you have some data, post it.