• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Marijuana is harmless. Right?

Chanakya

,
Chanakya
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,811
I'd just now been commenting on another thread that marijuana is fairly harmless. Far less harmful than alcohol, for instance.

But is that actually so? I think there's ample research saying this, but I don't actually have that research at hand at this time. So that it's entirely possible that I'm mistaken in thinking this.

I guess I'd have filed this away as "must check this out sometimes", and never actually got down to doing this, as one does with most things. So instead, this thread.



Is it fact that marijuana is fairly harmless? Is it fact that alcohol, for instance, is a far more harmful substance than is the ganja? Discuss.
 
okay, that was an incredibly lazy op. My excuse: was pressed for time, yet didn't want to let this go unaddressed (knowing that I'd likely never revisit this at all).

Still am, pressed for time I mean, but felt a jerk throwing this out for other to comment substantially on while putting nothing in of substance myself, so here's the result of some quick googling.

There seems to be lots of research out there, plenty that some quick google clicks point to. I've only glossed over these reports, nowhere near digested them fully (or even partly), so here's some links that I'm putting out there for those interested (including myself, later on!) to check out, with some accompanying comments (half-baked comments, probably misleading comments, because they come from some very quick speed-reading and glossing over, which is all I could put in at this time, that in no way does justice to the reports) on (what I vaguely think/imagine) those reports are about.



Here's an article on a meta-study, and an abstract of the meta-study itself that is linked within that article.

A study specifically about the addictive-ness of weed.

Some of this, that I've speed-read through, seems to bear out my view that the primary harm from weed is from the delivery system itself. If you can vape it (relatively) safely, or devise other better delivery systems, then maybe we can learn to live (and live happily, merrily!) with it. Here's another discussion on "How harmful is marijuana".

This study on the "Myths and Current Research" on the ganja announces that "Current research supports that marijuana is both physically addictive and psychologically addictive".

Yep! This Harvard Gazette interview does say, very definitely, that weed is less addictive than alcohol. (I seized on that bit, but it says many other things besides.)

Ding, caution! Psychosis and schizophrenia may follow. Nature.com article.

More bad news. 10% users get addicted. And it does screw up the brain, short term as well as long term. Link.




That's to get the discussion going.

I guess it's safe to say that marijuana isn't zero harm or zero addiction. Nor is it overly so. What might be interesting to know is how, specifically and exactly, this measures up vis-a-vis alcohol. In terms of direct harm, short term and long term; in terms of addiction; and also in terms of ancillary harm. Knowing this, and knowing this exactly, would help us, as individuals, form well-informed opinions on what to do with weed vis-a-vis what we do with alcohol.
 
I know we had a thread about this a year or two ago, but I can't seem to find it now.

The upshot was that it's still not politically expedient to say it's harmless, so you get studies showing "harmful" effects that are as mild as can be measured, and breathless journalism reporting "measurable harmful effects!"

The context was a driving risk study that claimed a 1.25x increase in relative risk of accidents with heavy pot use. Which might sound like (and was reported as being) a lot, until you read the study and saw that that increase was far less than driving 5 mph faster than the speed limit or having a single drink of alcohol, both of which nearly doubled the relative risk.

Chanakya said:
What might be interesting to know is how, specifically and exactly, this measures up vis-a-vis alcohol. In terms of direct harm, short term and long term; in terms of addiction; and also in terms of ancillary harm. Knowing this, and knowing this exactly, would help us, as individuals, form well-informed opinions on what to do with weed vis-a-vis what we do with alcohol.
Click to expand...
Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug by any measure, I don't think there's any question about that.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
I know we had a thread about this a year or two ago, but I can't seem to find it now.

The upshot was that it's still not politically expedient to say it's harmless, so you get studies showing "harmful" effects that are as mild as can be measured, and breathless journalism reporting "measurable harmful effects!"

The context was a driving risk study that claimed a 1.25x increase in relative risk of accidents with heavy pot use. Which might sound like (and was reported as being) a lot, until you read the study and saw that that increase was far less than driving 5 mph faster than the speed limit or having a single drink of alcohol, both of which nearly doubled the relative risk.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Studying the effect of weed (short term effect, long term effect, and addiction), that's one thing, and a very necessary thing -- but very far from complete unless directly and clearly linked/compared with alcohol.


Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug by any measure, I don't think there's any question about that.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, that's my view too. Very much so! I'd go so far as to lay a wager on that being the case.

And yet, around these parts it's customary to look for evidence even for the most obvious things, right? And a very good thing too, to make sure we're not giving in to our own prejudices and culture (or reverse-prejudices and counter-culture!)

I'd be happy if, at the end of this discussion, I could come out and say, with certitude, that given research thus far, this is what it is like, vis-a-vis alcohol.That those are the actual facts, not just my (perhaps prejudiced) opinion.
 
Everything carries risk, but dope carries a lot less risk than alcohol.

First off, in USA alone, a couple of thousand people die each year from drinking too much alcohol.

Nobody dies from cannabis overdose.

There are a hundred different ways alcohol causes harm, from family violence to drunkenly falling down holes, that just don't happen with dope.

The best summary I ever saw was about 25 years ago, when a Deep Purple concert in Auckland degenerated into a massive riot, injuring hundreds of people and causing a couple of hundred arrests - all alcohol-fuelled.

The same venue hosted a Neil Young concert a fortnight later and the head of security was asked about a repeat of the problem and he neatly explained that they'd more than halved the security for Neil Young because the audience was stoners rather than drinkers and they expected zero problems.

And so it turned out, with zero arrests and no trouble.
 
Chanakya said:
I'd just now been commenting on another thread that marijuana is fairly harmless. Far less harmful than alcohol, for instance.

But is that actually so? I think there's ample research saying this, but I don't actually have that research at hand at this time. So that it's entirely possible that I'm mistaken in thinking this.

I guess I'd have filed this away as "must check this out sometimes", and never actually got down to doing this, as one does with most things. So instead, this thread.



Is it fact that marijuana is fairly harmless? Is it fact that alcohol, for instance, is a far more harmful substance than is the ganja? Discuss.
Click to expand...


The problem is that there is little long term research on harms. Certainly there is evidence that long term use can be associated with psychiatric disorders. Most lung doctors will recognise cannabis lung in a small proportion of regular users who develop early onset emphysema.

The honest answer is we do not know. It is certainly wrong to argue it is safe. the argument that it may be safer than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol is not an argument I find convincing for legalisation. If we knew what we know now about tobacco we would not have allowed it. I have previously argued that moves to decriminalise cannabis have to be matched by funding research on health impacts.

Certainly if one allowed an entirely free market then cannabis is probably less harmful than cocaine.

The argument for medicinal use of cannabis is irrelevant because this implies it should be restricted in the way other medicines are.
 
The Atheist said:
Everything carries risk, but dope carries a lot less risk than alcohol.

First off, in USA alone, a couple of thousand people die each year from drinking too much alcohol.

Nobody dies from cannabis overdose.
There are a hundred different ways alcohol causes harm, from family violence to drunkenly falling down holes, that just don't happen with dope.

The best summary I ever saw was about 25 years ago, when a Deep Purple concert in Auckland degenerated into a massive riot, injuring hundreds of people and causing a couple of hundred arrests - all alcohol-fuelled.

The same venue hosted a Neil Young concert a fortnight later and the head of security was asked about a repeat of the problem and he neatly explained that they'd more than halved the security for Neil Young because the audience was stoners rather than drinkers and they expected zero problems.

And so it turned out, with zero arrests and no trouble.
Click to expand...

Not acutely. I have seen people die from long term cannabis use.
 
The Atheist said:
Everything carries risk, but dope carries a lot less risk than alcohol.

First off, in USA alone, a couple of thousand people die each year from drinking too much alcohol.

Nobody dies from cannabis overdose.

There are a hundred different ways alcohol causes harm, from family violence to drunkenly falling down holes, that just don't happen with dope.

The best summary I ever saw was about 25 years ago, when a Deep Purple concert in Auckland degenerated into a massive riot, injuring hundreds of people and causing a couple of hundred arrests - all alcohol-fuelled.

The same venue hosted a Neil Young concert a fortnight later and the head of security was asked about a repeat of the problem and he neatly explained that they'd more than halved the security for Neil Young because the audience was stoners rather than drinkers and they expected zero problems.

And so it turned out, with zero arrests and no trouble.
Click to expand...


I'm going devil's-advocate here -- like I'd said, my gut feeling is, absolutely, that weed's as close to harmless as it gets, and certainly far safer than alcohol -- but might the way higher harm caused, as far as statistics, by alcohol, be a function of (what I imagine is) the far far higher number of users/abusers of alcohol, compared to weed-users? Given how entirely fully wholly acceptable alcohol use is, given cultural reasons?
 
Planigale said:
The problem is that there is little long term research on harms. Certainly there is evidence that long term use can be associated with psychiatric disorders. Most lung doctors will recognise cannabis lung in a small proportion of regular users who develop early onset emphysema.
Click to expand...


This last can be mitigated, perhaps entirely overcome, by developing/better better modes of delivery. (Some of which is already available, although no doubt there's great scope for further improvement.)


The honest answer is we do not know. It is certainly wrong to argue it is safe. the argument that it may be safer than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol is not an argument I find convincing for legalisation. If we knew what we know now about tobacco we would not have allowed it.
Click to expand...


I see where you're coming from, absolutely. I don't agree , I don't think, to that kind of special pleading merely on cultural grounds, but I do understand your POV.


I have previously argued that moves to decriminalise cannabis have to be matched by funding research on health impacts.
Click to expand...


That much seems uncontroversial. No one could possibly disagree.


Certainly if one allowed an entirely free market then cannabis is probably less harmful than cocaine.

The argument for medicinal use of cannabis is irrelevant because this implies it should be restricted in the way other medicines are.
Click to expand...


Agreed, medical use is a whole different discussion. We're discussing recreational use here.
 
Risk analysis, alcohol vs marijuana

Greater risk of overeating: marijuana
Greater risk of dehydration: alcohol
Greater risk of mistakenly thinking you're a philosopher: marijuana
Greater risk of mistakenly thinking you're a singer: alcohol
Greater risk of drowning in a swimming pool full of the product: alcohol
Greater risk of burning to death in a warehouse full of the product that's on fire: marijuana
Greater risk of running toward the burning warehouse instead of away from it even though not a firefighter: marijuana
Greater risk of being badly injured by the container the product comes in if used as a weapon: alcohol
Greater risk of being murdered by evil cartels that produce and distribute the product: push
Greater risk of absurdly overpaying for exotic varieties that you have to pretend you can tell the superiority of even though that's not necessarily what you even actually got: push
Greater risk of waking up a member of the crew of a Royal Navy vessel after indulging, historically: alcohol
 
Myriad said:
Risk analysis, alcohol vs marijuana
...
Greater risk of mistakenly thinking you're a philosopher: marijuana
...
Click to expand...


This! :thumbsup:

Although as against that, alchohol carries the greater risk of thinking you're cut out to be a great writer. (At least with weed, while you'll think that, you'll also think you're above such mundane things as writing books, that's for the lesser folks not as wise as you!)
 
zooterkin said:
Professor David Nutt did some research into comparative harm of various drugs (and other things, like horse riding). His findings went against government policy so he lost his post.

Anyway, he reckons that alcohol does more harm than heroin, among other things, including marijuana. One report here - https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/study-compares-drug-harms/ and another here - https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8094759/alcohol-marijuana
Click to expand...


Interesting!

But apparently this isn't on a per-use basis. That is, it seems that alcohol is up there as far as "harm" primarily because it is legal and therefore also very much up there in terms of actual consumption, in terms of numbers of users/abusers.

So simply saying that alcohol is more dangerous than weed on the basis of this might be a tad misleading. (And saying that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin or crack is downright misleading, if the blurb is all one goes by.)



That said, the consensus still seems to be -- the consensus referred to in this study, I mean to say, after adjusting for the wider use -- that marijuana, at any rate, is probably (much) safer than alcohol. They're actually saying that if you must necessarily make one of the two legal and the other not, then we should go with weed.


Thanks for the links!
 
Whatever the risks of Marijuana use and abuse might be, I think we should all be in agreement that criminalisation and the War on Drugs cure is far, far worse than the "disease".

It's like the US have never learnt from prohibition. Well, they have, of course; They learnt that there was money to be made.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Whatever the risks of Marijuana use and abuse might be, I think we should all be in agreement that criminalisation and the War on Drugs cure is far, far worse than the "disease".

It's like the US have never learnt from prohibition. Well, they have, of course; They learnt that there was money to be made.
Click to expand...


That's kind of a separate discussion, I guess.

Besides, that something turned out badly at one point in time, doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea overall.


(Playing devil's advocate here, let me emphasize! That's the whole point of this thread, as far as I'm concerned, to see if my firmly held view that marijuana is harmless and should not just be decriminalized but actually legalized, and legalized everywhere, might not be based on a prejudiced view of facts.)



Look at it this way. Prohibition was imposed on a generation of actual addicts and near-addicts, right? That is, on a generation of people that were entirely used to freely consuming the stuff. No wonder it came off badly.

Now had they persisted with it, and rolled roughshod over the initial "resistance", who's to say that the next generation might not have far fewer people exposed to alcohol, so that by now widespread use of alcohol would have become no more than a historical nugget from the past.



While I myself agree with your POV, I'm not sure my own view (and therefore yours) is necessarily the correct one, as far as policy.

In any case, the policy discussion, like we were saying, is probably a separate discussion.
 
Planigale said:
Not acutely. I have seen people die from long term cannabis use.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't be an overdose.

Ron Obvious said:
Whatever the risks of Marijuana use and abuse might be, I think we should all be in agreement that criminalisation and the War on Drugs cure is far, far worse than the "disease".

It's like the US have never learnt from prohibition. Well, they have, of course; They learnt that there was money to be made.
Click to expand...

Same lesson learnt down here when we threw out the chance to legalise dope just two months ago - criminal gangs were delighted, as were the booze barons.
 
zooterkin said:
Professor David Nutt did some research into comparative harm of various drugs (and other things, like horse riding). His findings went against government policy so he lost his post.

Anyway, he reckons that alcohol does more harm than heroin, among other things, including marijuana. One report here - https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-exercise/study-compares-drug-harms/ and another here - https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8094759/alcohol-marijuana
Click to expand...

The problem with his data is the presentation: total harm is a function not only of risk but also exposure. Many more people use alcohol than heroin, so more harm caused by alcohol does not mean that it is less risky. And since government policy directly affects exposure rates (we can expect usage to go up with legalization, for example), those risk rates, not just total harm done, are critical to understanding the effects of government policy.

To give an example of this risk/exposure difference, cows kill more people than sharks. But that does not mean that cows are more dangerous than sharks. Rather, people have so much more exposure to cows than to sharks that the lower risk rate per period of contact is more than compensated for the increased contact. You still need to be more careful around sharks than around cows.

Bringing this back to pot, as others have said, we don't know the long term dangers of pot use. We have a pretty good handle on the long term effects of alcohol. In some people it's debilitating, tragic, and occasionally lethal. But in others, it's harmless or even a net positive. We have a pretty good handle on how to use alcohol responsibly, even if not everyone does it that way. We do not know yet how to use pot responsibly long term. It's definitely not always harmless, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom