Not 100% agree with ZOMGits on Marijuana

[borrofburi]

My point is that high qualitity evidence in clinical studies is LACKING! until such evidence is present,

If you're right, this means we should do some studies... Oh that's right, we can't, because it's illegal to even do the studies.

 

[Memeticemetic]

The only resource I've ever seen for reliable, useful information about marijuana is utterly useless in any kind of scientific sense. That is to say, my own experience and that of my friends. I was a long term recreational user for many years and can only really report the effects it had on me. It was tremendously effective as a pain-killer. It relieved the symptoms of nausea effectively. My first and most potent depressive state was while under the influence, as was my first and most potent panic attack. Eventually I experienced extreme panic attacks with every dose, even comparatively small doses to those I was accustomed to. When I quit entirely, I experienced no ill effects or withdrawal symptoms. Unfortunately, testimonials like mine are by far the majority of "evidence" collected. The dangers and benefits are still largely unknown and I oppose both the burnt-out hippies who endorse it's use for damn near everything and the sanctimonious prigs who claim it's a "gateway drug" and devastatingly dangerous.

edit: When I say reliable, useful information I mean reliable and useful only to me.

 

[creamcheese]

Living in California, where medical pot is legal, I can testify that we don't seem to be suffering any devastating effects. Of course, marijuana is so prevalent here I'm not sure that it has any meaning, besides some people with cancer not getting arrested for taking something that makes them feel better.

I can also provide anecdotal evidence that marijuana being a 'gateway drug' is mostly bullshit. There are some people who end up in a situation like that, but so do some alcoholics and alcohol is perfectly legal (in fact you'd probably have a civil war if you tried to outlaw it). The vast majority of users that I have known do it casually, and as a way to relax or party, similar to how alcohol is used. Punishing the vast majority of responsible users for the mistakes of a few is unjust.

I have never, and will never, use mind altering substances for anything other than medical reasons (and only if prescribed by my physician), but I am 100% for legalization. We nearly legalized it in CA a few months ago actually.

 

[SagansHeroes]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. What people who aren't me want to put in their bodies is their look out. Personally I wouldn't touch the stuff but meh, to each his own.

A nice idea in principle, however what about people who are undereducated or mistaken into believing it's safe?

Additionally, what about the knock on effects for those who care for the individual?

You could use the same arguments for Alcohol or Tobacco or hell even pain killers or sleeping pills..... People aren't even considering making them illegal, and in places where it is legal (like amsterdam) the use of the substance DECREASED.... The point is, do people deserve to get fined, go to jail, suffer prejudice or a criminal conviction for a substance that has been repeatedly shown to be less harmful to the individual and others than legal substances like Alcohol and Tobacco....

Sure it's not completely harmless, but water is more toxic to the system than THC. And there are plenty of safer alternatives to smoking the dry plant that aren't as harmful to say the lungs.

 

[Hedley]

My point is that high qualitity evidence in clinical studies is LACKING! until such evidence is present,

If you're right, this means we should do some studies... Oh that's right, we can't, because it's illegal to even do the studies.

Among science, the hardest one is epidemiology, since testing things can be harmful or illegal! and therefore research can not be done!
Science itself do not care about law or crimes, it does care about evidence and its validity.
I have no idea if god exists, or if there is lfe in Mars or if the giant tea pot is a transneptunian object: why? because science lacks of empirical evidence that support such claims.

"Medical marijuana" is just another of such "nice" hypotheses". I KNOW about anecdotal evidence about marijuana use, HOWEVER from the scientific POW that evidence IS NOT VALID!!!

I am emphatic that banning drugs makes a status quo of death, mob and harm! It seems that marijuana (but, I am not really sure) is safer than alcohol or nicotine products (except for isolated nicotine, used to treat addiction). Such banning make a poor control over such "recreational" drugs.

Also, such ban blurs the research on possible effects of marijuana over disease... Until such ideal state is not achieved, "medical marijuana" still being a myth from the clinical perspective!

 

[Shaedys]

Uhm, do a study in the Netherlands?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Hedley, I have already said that you should watch shanedk's video on the war on drugs. He mentions several studies which support the idea of using medical marijuana. If you don't want to watch it, thats fine but do not then keep on posting that there are no studies to support its use. If you want I can embed it here but it should not be hard to find.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I can also provide anecdotal evidence that marijuana being a 'gateway drug' is mostly bullshit.

All arguments for gateway drugs are bullshit.

It's not the drug that leads to harder drugs, it's the crowd. It's not like music, where you may find you really enjoy an artist and wind up exploring others in their genre.

Almost every pothead I know is exclusively a pothead - they don't do harder drugs. Incidentally, their crowd is very centered around marijuana. They aren't interested in other drugs. However, they do wind up in association with people who do other drugs, by necessity. If you hang out with a drug dealer, and let him sell you pot, you give him the chance to upsell you some of his cocaine as well. It's the same principal as a grocery store. Marijuana is no more a gateway to harder drugs than Caramello is a gateway to bigger candy bars.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I can also provide anecdotal evidence that marijuana being a 'gateway drug' is mostly bullshit.

All arguments for gateway drugs are bullshit.

It's not the drug that leads to harder drugs, it's the crowd. It's not like music, where you may find you really enjoy an artist and wind up exploring others in their genre.

Almost every pothead I know is exclusively a pothead - they don't do harder drugs. Incidentally, their crowd is very centered around marijuana. They aren't interested in other drugs. However, they do wind up in association with people who do other drugs, by necessity. If you hang out with a drug dealer, and let him sell you pot, you give him the chance to upsell you some of his cocaine as well. It's the same principal as a grocery store. Marijuana is no more a gateway to harder drugs than Caramello is a gateway to bigger candy bars.

To add to your argument. It is actually more valid to call nicotine or alcohol a gateway drug because more people started off with those and went to harder drugs than marijuana.

 

[Kevin R Brown]

The criminalization of cannabis in the United States was driven much more by racism than any sort of concern for public safety. This is why tobacco (which was considered an upper class 'white man's' recreational drug) has always remained perfectly legal, while cannabis (the recreational drug of the 'loco blacks') was, at first, harshly taxed - and then eventually banned altogether.

Can't have those negros enjoying a similar recreational activity to the privileged wealthy white class!

 

[Kevin R Brown]

An example of the sort of 'science' used to justify the prohibition against cannabis:

 

[Hedley]

Hedley, I have already said that you should watch shanedk's video on the war on drugs. He mentions several studies which support the idea of using medical marijuana. If you don't want to watch it, thats fine but do not then keep on posting that there are no studies to support its use. If you want I can embed it here but it should not be hard to find.

I saw the shanedk,´s video series and I strongly recommend it:






-For the epidemiology POV, there is no evidence on "medical marijuana". Of course, there are several studies on pre-clinical stages that suggest many possible benefits (as happen to a LOT OF DRUGS who fail clinical phases and nobody knows about them), however until new clinical evidence (phases I-III) no solid conclusion CAN BE DRAWN!

-I also share the statement of that wise pharmacologist: war on drugs kill people and do a lot of harm! It kill people due gangs effects, violation of rights from both the police and low quality standards used by illegal dealers (selling to minors, use of solvents and metals in order to make drugs and other despicable actions) and overcrowding of jails!

-The war on drugs is as despicable as the Crusades, the Inquisition or other shitty thing, but the evidence on medical uses of marijuana is weak... The evidence harm made by marijuana seem to point to earlier development of mental problem, but (SINCE IT IS ILLEGAL), research can not show hardcore evidence!

See this nice revision that shows my point:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370677


ps: I like how bogus looks faulx nooz!

 

[Kevin R Brown]

-The war on drugs is as despicable as the Crusades, the Inquisition or other shitty thing, but the evidence on medical uses of marijuana is weak... The evidence harm made by marijuana seem to point to earlier development of mental problem, but (SINCE IT IS ILLEGAL), research can not show hardcore evidence!

...And what is the evidence for cannabis being harmful, out of curiosity? You're demanding we carry the burden of proof for beneficial effects (and fair enough, I'll oblige you), and yet on that same token seem to want to take it for granted that cannabis is harmful without having to substantiate that claim.


The active ingredient in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol; work done at the Scripps Research Institute has demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabinol prevents the formation of deposits in the brain that are associated with Alzheimer's Disease. The plaque forming enzyme acetylcholinesterase, for example, was better treated with tetrahydrocannabinol than with any other known commercial drug.

And yet people who are having their brains, along with their own memories & identities, eaten away by Alzheimer's cannot take the most effective drug for combating their illness because a bunch of racist lunatics decided that the drug should be illegal.


Researchers at the University of Michigan have examined the notion that cannabis may be carcinogenic and turned-up evidence that instead suggests that the drug is not only non-carcinogenic, but appears to have a protective effect. Tetrahydrocannabinol, it turns out, appears to encourage apoptosis in cells before they can become malignant.


At the Columbia University, it was discovered that HIV/AIDS patients who took cannabis were able to regain their appetites (which is absolutely incredible; no other known treatment has been able to stimulate an HIV/AIDS patient's hunger) and had substantially deadened neuropathic pain.


At the California Pacific Medical Center, researchers found that the cannabidiol found in cannabis may actually outright stop breast cancer cells from spreading by halting the activity of the ld-1 Gene.


At the Laboratory for Physiopathology of Diseases of the Central Nervous System, it was demonstrated that rats addicted to opioids that were then injected with tetrahydrocannabinol ceased to be addicted to the opioids.



All of the above is absolutely, knee weakeningly awesome medical potential, and that's just the results of what little study has been done so far. Cannabis is not just an okay or good medicinal substance, it is an excellent form of medication, and the fact that we do not have it in refined quantities on drug store shelves is an absolute disgrace.

 

[Hedley]

-The war on drugs is as despicable as the Crusades, the Inquisition or other shitty thing, but the evidence on medical uses of marijuana is weak... The evidence harm made by marijuana seem to point to earlier development of mental problem, but (SINCE IT IS ILLEGAL), research can not show hardcore evidence!

...And what is the evidence for cannabis being harmful, out of curiosity? You're demanding we carry the burden of proof for beneficial effects (and fair enough, I'll oblige you), and yet on that same token seem to want to take it for granted that cannabis is harmful without having to substantiate that claim.


The active ingredient in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol; work done at the Scripps Research Institute has demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabinol prevents the formation of deposits in the brain that are associated with Alzheimer's Disease. The plaque forming enzyme acetylcholinesterase, for example, was better treated with tetrahydrocannabinol than with any other known commercial drug.

And yet people who are having their brains, along with their own memories & identities, eaten away by Alzheimer's cannot take the most effective drug for combating their illness because a bunch of racist lunatics decided that the drug should be illegal.


Researchers at the University of Michigan have examined the notion that cannabis may be carcinogenic and turned-up evidence that instead suggests that the drug is not only non-carcinogenic, but appears to have a protective effect. Tetrahydrocannabinol, it turns out, appears to encourage apoptosis in cells before they can become malignant.


At the Columbia University, it was discovered that HIV/AIDS patients who took cannabis were able to regain their appetites (which is absolutely incredible; no other known treatment has been able to stimulate an HIV/AIDS patient's hunger) and had substantially deadened neuropathic pain.


At the California Pacific Medical Center, researchers found that the cannabidiol found in cannabis may actually outright stop breast cancer cells from spreading by halting the activity of the ld-1 Gene.


At the Laboratory for Physiopathology of Diseases of the Central Nervous System, it was demonstrated that rats addicted to opioids that were then injected with tetrahydrocannabinol ceased to be addicted to the opioids.



All of the above is absolutely, knee weakeningly awesome medical potential, and that's just the results of what little study has been done so far. Cannabis is not just an okay or good medicinal substance, it is an excellent form of medication, and the fact that we do not have it in refined quantities on drug store shelves is an absolute disgrace.

I understand that such nasty diseases decrease the quality of life of patients, do harm and I do hate them!

I think that evidence could justify doing clinical trials, see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial
Until SUCCESS IS SHOWN IN SUCH STUDIES, we can not speak on REAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Of course, it has potential... but is NOT a real thing until the aforementioned happens!

Let me quote from wiki:

...A number of medical organizations have endorsed reclassification of marijuana to ALLOW FOR FURTHER STUDY. These include, but are not limited to, the following...

that's my point!

 

[borrofburi]

...And what is the evidence for cannabis being harmful, out of curiosity? You're demanding we carry the burden of proof for beneficial effects (and fair enough, I'll oblige you), and yet on that same token seem to want to take it for granted that cannabis is harmful without having to substantiate that claim.

You didn't answer the question Hedley

 

[Kevin R Brown]

Until SUCCESS IS SHOWN IN SUCH STUDIES, we can not speak on REAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Of course, it has potential... but is NOT a real thing until the aforementioned happens!

Those instances I quoted WERE real medical trials! Real doctors gave real patients real cannabis, and got real results. What are your complaints?

 

[Hedley]

Until SUCCESS IS SHOWN IN SUCH STUDIES, we can not speak on REAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Of course, it has potential... but is NOT a real thing until the aforementioned happens!

Those instances I quoted WERE real medical trials! Real doctors gave real patients real cannabis, and got real results. What are your complaints?

My complaints:
1-There is NO COHORT STUDIES THAT SHOWED it!

 

[Kevin R Brown]

My complaints:
1-There is NO COHORT STUDIES THAT SHOWED it!

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891

There are the Cohort studies.

So, what now?

 

[Hedley]

Ok, Kevin!
I am a scientist and I am trying to get a PhD in epidemiology.
I have to read the documents you show me with a magnify lens in order to give an educated opinion.
The difference between science and other disciplines is that ignorance IS a motive that moves it.

I insist that I am not a wacky fundy against marijuana like these people here: http://www.marijuanaharmsfamilies.com/ (no feedback allowed as as usual in fundies websites)

I am against stating that marijuana IS a substance that have healthy effects, without cohorts studies with large power (a large person-year number) and nice a design that supports such claim with the minimal amount of bias!

My problem IS NOT about legal issue, or to deny marijuana opportunities to compete against other proven drugs:
1-My point is being skeptical is the safest position: atheism and science! simple...!

The idea is only to support claims supported by hardcore evidence!

 

[Kevin R Brown]

IT IS SUPPORTED BY HARDCORE EVIDENCE.

I have posted double-blind studies, and even the Cohort studies that you demanded, some of them with 10,000+ study participants. The burden of proof has been met more than adequately; saying, 'Where is the evidence?' at this point is n better than the Creationist demanding 'more evidence' of evolution after being pointed to TalkOrigins.org.


Where are your counter-claims, if you have any?