Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good point. If it were available to me, I would not smoke it. I'm lucky I don't have lung cancer, rather than a mild incipeint case of COPD, since I did smoke cigarettes for 18 years. But I quit 20+ years ago. With THC (which is the active ingredient you're wanting), you can cook with it. Some people think vaporizing it is safe; I'm not convinced.
Go beyond the headlines and actually read the study - seriously flawed - no lab work at all, only questionaires requiring people to remember back decades to their early use. No controls for environmental factors, alcohol, other drugs/chemical exposure. The control group and the affected group were not the same size, this alone would put any conclusions in doubt. Fortunately there are none in this study. Note how often that MAY is used in the text, basically this is just a speculation piece, at least the grant paid the bills.
She did the study in response to a grant, no bias there right? Follow the money...
I don't want minors to use drugs of any kind, legal or illegal, but if you use obviously biased "research", realy a flawed poll, the under 18 group will see right through it. You have to be honest witth them, or they will tune out.
This "study" serves no one on either side of the issue.
All stats and studies have an agenda, we know that, and there are always enviornmental issues, yes, like other substances, uses, even where one lives, regardless, the study was done and is worth thinking about, Other than, it is pretty much a fact, marajuana will reduce pain for Chemo we still know very little about long term effects. I do know, from watching a few family members, pot used, more than occasssionally does a lot more damage than it does good. As for medical marajuana, in Ca, all you have to do is smile and doctors will write you a percription.
All stats and studies have an agenda, we know that, and there are always enviornmental issues, yes, like other substances, uses, even where one lives, regardless, the study was done and is worth thinking about, Other than, it is pretty much a fact, marajuana will reduce pain for Chemo we still know very little about long term effects. I do know, from watching a few family members, pot used, more than occasssionally does a lot more damage than it does good. As for medical marajuana, in Ca, all you have to do is smile and doctors will write you a percription.
Not all stats presentations and studies have an agenda. There are some researchers that are just paid to do pure reearch, and if they find anything useful, the entity funding the research, such as a school or a large corporation (Think MIT, or Xerox 's Parc Center, or the US Military) they try to figure out ways to capitalize on the research.
Just because this study was done doesn't give it any merit, so no it might not be worth talking about except to verify that the money came from an anti-drug source and that there are significant flaws that incude SUGGESTING conclusions by using "may" when in reality, it's just speculation.
We actually know a lot about long term effects because cannabis has been used for a very long time. There was even a depiction of the plant in an Egyptian pictograph that is estimated to be at least 3,000 years old. Not only that, but there have been over 20,000 studies done on cannabis worldwide.
I'm not saying there should not be more study. There should be more, and if the DEA would reschedule cannabis from schedule one to something less, there would be more study.
You really don't know, from watching a few family members (who share some of the same genes), anything about cannabis use. You do know something about your relatives and how you might react if you copied their behavior. None of your casual observations of this limited and insular group would be accepted by anyone as valid research.
Unfortunately California, all by itself, has given the medical cannabis movement a black eye. However, much of the fault lies with government, especially the LA City government, which for years refused to make any attempt to regulate the industry in their city. Subsequent attempts to close the barn door after all the livestock have escaped have left LA with over 100 lawsuits they are fighting with local dispensories.
Many prohibitionists in other states now point to California (because they think LA is California) and say, we don't want a program like that, or we don't want to become "another California", even though the laws in those states are usually proposed in opposition to the "California" model or in consideration of the flaws of that model.
Personally I don't think that all the hysteria is justified in any way. We're talking about a substance that has been used for thousands of years, a substance that is non-toxic, a substance that has a weaker propensity toward addiction than caffeine, and potential health benefits that might include fighting some types of cancer. All this for literally pennies a day, if you were ALLOWED to grow your own and if adults could legally purchase it.
I believe that most responsible people would agree that minors should not have access to this, or to alcohol, or harder drugs, or, as my parents believed, even coffee and tobacco.
Cannabis is not worse than cocaine, or morphine, and should not be in a more restrictive schedule category than they are.
To be accurate, Dr's can not write a "perscription" for cannabis anywhere in the US. They can only recommend it. Dr's would have their ability to write perscriptions yanked by the DEA if they tried that.
Why do you care whether someone with a headache gets a recommendation for cannabis? It will cure their headache faster than asperin and without the side effects of Tylenol.
As you say, almost anyone in Califonia has been able to get a recommendation for cannabis since the late 1990's, so anything that could have happened is already happening, but without sound regulation. Even without regulation the World (Even in California) has not ended. The state legislature has done for more damage to California than cannabis has.
Wouldn't a tax and regulate program, like we have with alcohol, a far more dangerous and toxic substance, make more sense than the current free-for-all shoot em up Drug War that we are living in? What's the fear of a responsible comprehensive regulatory system that treats addiction as a health issue and doesn't treat all use as abuse?
There has never been a single study that shows a causal relationship between lung cancer and cannabis (pot). People just naturally assume this because it SOUNDS reasonable.
Many users, especialy chronic users do exhibit a "smokers cough", not surprising given the particulates they are inhaling, but the studies I have read show that cannabis smokers show less incidence of lung cancer than non smokers, and less incidence of cancer than those who smoke both cannabis and tobacco.
You really don't know, from watching a few family members (who share some of the same genes), anything about cannabis use. You do know something about your relatives and how you might react if you copied their behavior. None of your casual observations of this limited and insular group would be accepted by anyone as valid research.
Nice, thoughtful response. I wanted to say something like the above, but didn't want to hurt her feelings. What she is referring to is anecdotal "evidence," which is no evidence at all.
...snipped....We actually know a lot about long term effects because cannabis has been used for a very long time. There was even a depiction of the plant in an Egyptian pictograph that is estimated to be at least 3,000 years old. Not only that, but there have been over 20,000 studies done on cannabis worldwide. I don't think just because it has been used for a very long time that we automatically know the long term effects.
....snipped....
You really don't know, from watching a few family members (who share some of the same genes), anything about cannabis use. You do know something about your relatives and how you might react if you copied their behavior. None of your casual observations of this limited and insular group would be accepted by anyone as valid research. I am not young. I have worked in business for many, many years, quite a few in Human Resources. I have observed coworkers and employees that used pot. I could always tell the next day when they had been smoking the night before. It was like their head was stuffed with cotton.....their short term memory was just not there. Same with family members, some close, some not, so there were genetic differences but, it was up close and personal observation. Same thing about their actions and reactions, sluggish and often silly (some would call it "laid back"). And, with a few people who had really abused cannabis, the short term memory was just gone. I have a guy working for me now and he is/was a very bright fellow and after 30 years of pot smoking, I have to repeat instructions of what I want him to do, over and over before it sinks in......my observations aren't scientific but they are honest and valid and verifiable (sp) and yes, anecdotal but her perceptions are still valid.
There have been studies done testing reaction time in a vehicle of a person using cannabis and it was on a par with alcohol use. Do I want to encounter someone who is "high" on a wet road or dark night.... ? Not if I could know it..... Do we need more impaired drivers on the road ?
And, good luck, keeping kids from smoking pot. They do it in elementary school now and it is illegal.
This wasn't directed at me, I take it? As indicated earlier in the thread, I don't smoke anything. I don't think smoking anything is healthy.
No one would suggest that one should drive under the influence of THC, or that young people should have it, or that one should work or "operate heavy machinery" while stoned. All those things are an indication of bad judgement. A distinction should be drawn between use and abuse, I think. One has to consider other human beings and refrain from putting them in danger.
To stay in the area of cancer issues, my concern is long term use of NSAIDS for my osteoarthritis, and the possibility of the return of my cancer. I want to be able to access mj so I can cook with it, and not have to suffer as much. I think it should be legally available for that purpose.
I would also be happier if this--and every other controversial issue--would be examined dispassionately, based on rational thought and facts, and disassociated with religious sentiment and puritanical attitudes. This, of course, is too much to ask for in most of our cultural enclaves.
There have been studies done testing reaction time in a vehicle of a person using cannabis and it was on a par with alcohol use. Do I want to encounter someone who is "high" on a wet road or dark night.... ? Not if I could know it..... Do we need more impaired drivers on the road ?
And, good luck, keeping kids from smoking pot. They do it in elementary school now and it is illegal.
You are a pot smoker, I take it.....?
Do I want to encounter someone who is tired? Or on their cell phone? Or disciplining children? Or not paying attention? Or driving angry? The accidents that have happened to people in my family and social circle anecdotally mostly come from one of the above - and absolutely none due to marijuana use. I absolutely think that DUI's get off light - first offense should result in losing your license for a minimum of a year - but what about the distractions that you can't prove? That's an educated risk. Just as we would never ban children in cars because some parents are unable to handle that stimulus, not all those who use marijuana or alcohol should be punished for a few.
Silly argument to ban marijuana. No one should be in any way impaired while driving - but we also can't require someone get a full night's sleep or leave their kids at home every time they get behind the wheel.
Marijuana made it possible for me to be functional at work through chemo. It also saved me money - I did not have to take a handful of pills every day to control the side effects of chemo, saving me quite literally $300+ a month, even when factoring in the cost of pot.
My boyfriend has advanced glaucoma at 28 - he will likely be blind before he is 35, even with intervention. Smoking marijuana relieves pressure on his eyes and was recommended by his ophthalmologist, like using it was recommended to me by my oncologist. It helps preserve his sight, relieves headaches and severe eye pain, and reduces the anxiety caused by facing loss of sight so young. And currently, he has to go through illegal channels to get that relief, or spend hundreds of dollars a month on pills that will render him unable to function. He works from home in his own successful business - marijuana allows him to be scores more productive than painkillers.
There have been studies done testing reaction time in a vehicle of a person using cannabis and it was on a par with alcohol use. Do I want to encounter someone who is "high" on a wet road or dark night.... ? Not if I could know it..... Do we need more impaired drivers on the road ?
And, good luck, keeping kids from smoking pot. They do it in elementary school now and it is illegal.
You are a pot smoker, I take it.....?
Yes, there have been studies testing both marijuana use and alcohol use and then driving. You might want to research the National Transportation & Safety Board's study that showed that while both groups tested poorly in driving skills, including reaction time, as compared to the control group, it was found that the marijuana group actually recognized their imparment more often than the alcohol group and SLOWED DOWN to compensate for their slower reaction time.
This gave them higher scores, which were higher than the alcohol group anyway. The alcohol group not only continued to drive past when it was clearly not safe to do so, but at higher speeds than either the marijuana group or the control group.
So while I agree with you that people who are "high" shouldn't drive, two things are also true: 1) Irresponsible marijuana and alcohol users are doing that now and will continue to do so. 2) A zero tolerance policy, as many states have, makes no sense for a substance that can stay in the body for long after it is at an effective dose to cause impairment.
We don't need luck to make obtaining marijuana more difficult for kids. What we do need is sensible regulation, so that it isn't easier for them to get marijuana than to get alcohol. Local dealers selling an illegal substance are not subject to any controls and don't check I.D., a legal shop owner would.
"I don't think just because it has been used for a very long time that we automatically know the long term effects."
You would be right, I guess, if all we had was the historical record, especially if you think the people who came before us were not as "smart" as we are, but that is a different discussion.
What we do have is an experiment that has been going on for the last 40 or so years by the US government which has been giving a select group access to marijuana from the University of Mississippi (one of the few places that can legally grow). Most of these people have died of old age complications or from their original illness, but I think at least one or two are still alive, and get their marijuana delivered every month. This group provides a unique opportunity to study the effects of long term use in a modern setting, and those studies have been done and are available. It is very interesting reading, I suggest you google it.
"I am not young. I have worked in business for many, many years, quite a few in Human Resources. I have observed coworkers and employees that used pot. I could always tell the next day when they had been smoking the night before. It was like their head was stuffed with cotton.....their short term memory was just not there. Same with family members, some close, some not, so there were genetic differences but, it was up close and personal observation. Same thing about their actions and reactions, sluggish and often silly (some would call it "laid back"). And, with a few people who had really abused cannabis, the short term memory was just gone. I have a guy working for me now and he is/was a very bright fellow and after 30 years of pot smoking, I have to repeat instructions of what I want him to do, over and over before it sinks in......my observations aren't scientific but they are honest and valid and verifiable (sp) and yes, anecdotal but her perceptions are still valid."
I am not young either, but I'm not sure what point you are making? Nothing personal, but there is a thread here where many have concluded that unfortunately old age does not confer wisdom or “special’ knowledge. I have also worked in business for many many years, and have hired literally hundreds of people.
I haven't witnessed the behavior you describe, except in regards to known alcohol drinkers. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I think you are kidding yourself if you think you could tell that they had smoked the night before. Don't forget you had prior knowledge of their inclination to smoke, so your observations would be biased. You might, however inadvertently, ascribe any of their behaviors as after effects of marijuana use, when it could be something else or in addition to that use.
I don't question your honesty, I just question your conclusions. It has been shown numerous times that bias can affect observations and even testing outcomes. Remember the study where teachers were told that a certain group of kids were very very smart and another group was "challenged". If you don't google it. It is very interesting. In reality the groups were of equal intelligence and scored the same on tests prior to the experiment.
Anecdotal observation is by definition the opposite of scientific inquiry, and is usually, and this includes your observations, of such a limited group, with no allowance for outside influences or controls, that it is useless to make any particular point. For every person that you can name who fits your "valid observations", I can name several high achievers that do not exhibit any of the behaviors you mention. Neither proves anything.
It's a little scary that you were in the HR field for many years and think that your anecdotal observations could predict what someone did the night before. I hope no one lost their job based on that.
Of course I am in the minority that think that continued employment should be based on performance, not your credot history, driving record, marital status, drug use, legal or illegal, etc. But that's just me.
Look I don't expect to change your mind, but I do hope that you would be open to do actual research of scientific studies, especially those not funded by the DEA.
You would be surprised at what you think you know that, while perfectly reasonable, is simply not true. I constantly am.
In any case it has been a pleasure sharing thoughts with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really
