The biggest difficulty with marijuana is that we don't really know what's in it. For years we only thought that THC is the active ingredient, and then in the last decade we've found out that CBD is also an active ingredient. We discus "cannaboids," but we (the lay people) don't really know what they are, nor are they labeled.<p>(In CA, when I go to the pot shop, TCH and CBD percentages are labeled, and strain is sometimes labeled, but nothing else is.)<p>The thing that a lot of non-marijuana consumers don't realize is that the effects vary considerably from strain to strain. (It would be as if different brands of beer had different kinds of buzzes.) This most likely is because the cannaboids vary as from strain to strain, but we don't know what they are, and don't label them. The best we can do is try to stick with known strains that we like.<p>To be quite honest, (and to keep with the point of the article,) some strains are like coffee. They just make me feel a little different. Other strains really do put weird thoughts and paranoia into my head. Some strains make me very introverted. Could long-term heavy use of strains with certain cannaboids trigger behavior similar to mental illness? We don't even know what the cannaboids are to study!
The article points out that medical research on cannabis is inconclusive and insufficient. But it fails to mention that one of the main reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs is the political paranoia and subsequent legal difficulties involved in conducting cannabis research [1, 2, 3].<p>[1] Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research. Committee on the health effects of marijuana: An evidence review and research agenda. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/</a><p>[2] Why Is it So Hard to Study Pot? Rolling Stone. <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/why-is-it-so-hard-to-study-pot-124767/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/why-is...</a><p>[3] Medical cannabis research. Wikipedia. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_research#United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_research#Unit...</a>
Anecdotally I've seen multiple friend's mental health deteriorate while smoking weed consistently. In more than one case, they had a history of mental illness in the family.<p>This could just be a correlation.
Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe?<p>Breathing is not safe either. Living on earth as well; small rocks from outerspace have created mass extinctions over and over.<p>The universe isn't safe and I don't want to be safe; I want to be happy. You know what doesn't make me happy? The possibility of going to jail over something that hurts nobody.<p>So take your safe space and put it in that spot in your mind that is labeled "wishful thinking".<p>Edit: Note that anyone that is trying to argue the point of the article with me is missing out the point: it doesn't matter if it is safe or not, it is my choice to do it. Just like it would be my choice to take my own life away. Or to get an abortion (if I was a woman). It is not up to <i>you</i>, government, or society to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body and whether I should feel bad about it or not.<p>So yeah, while you can argue whether it is safe or not, it doesn't really matter. Going to jail is definitely less safe than smoking pot.
Probably not, but is prohibition safe? Are armed police safe? Is paracetamol safe? Could this be perhaps an issue where a sense of proportion and balance of harms is appropriate?
No matter how harmful Marijuana is, prohibition is even worse.<p>I recently moved to a state that has legal weed. I was pulled over yesterday and the amount of FEAR I felt when the cop got out of the car was intense. I spent years being harassed by cops who would "smell marajuana."<p>And then it clicked in my head: I don't have to be afraid. Weed is legal. They can't use that excuse anymore.
I wonder if that illustration's concentric-shape-shifting style is 'in' right now due to the Collapse EP release a couple of months back. Compare:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(EP)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(EP)</a><p>Also similar and popular, but without changing shape as the concentric shapes move out:<p><a href="https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Black-Mirror-Bandersnatch-1.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Black-Mirror-...</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/25833504237" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/25833504237</a><p>>Nobody half-understands a topic as lucidly as Malcolm Gladwell. Unless he's found one case study claiming the contrary.<p><a href="https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/big-data-vs-big-hair.html" rel="nofollow">https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/big-data-vs-big-...</a><p>>And now, finally, just for fun, we have the Coup de Gladwell:<p>>“I think millennials are very trusting,” Gladwell said. “And when they say they’re not...they’re bullshitting.”<p>>And there you have it, folks. Who needs data when you have Gladwellian Pronouncements. The future is not the era of Big Data...it is the era of Big Gladwell.<p>I don't trust Malcolm Gladwell to fully understand a topic, much less explain it to the public. This particular article is also suspicious because he's been pro-tobacco for decades: <a href="https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/" rel="nofollow">https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/</a>
An article riddle with questions and no answers. Yet, it feels as though the author wants us to be cautious about this mysterious substance we know nothing about.<p>We might not know everything, but we do know a couple of things. For example, we know that nobody has died from cannabis overdose in the history of humanity. That, at least is something worthy of mention.
If cannabis displaces alcohol in recreational drug use, it is hard to see that being a bad trade-off, even in all but the rarest individual cases.<p>There is also a massive amount of quack medicine out there "treating" cannabis users because that's the alternative to going to prison. Those quacks are not going to give up their gravy train without a fight.<p>Overall the article is disappointing especially coming from Gladwell who I expect would delve into Drug War quackery and scientific fraud. He points out that cannabis is unstudied, and then goes on to the scary anecdotes.<p>His omission of the harm reduction aspect of cannabis is highlighted by his use of non-cigarette nicotine products as an example of hard reduction that is sometimes the object of moral panic.<p>There's no sense of perspective. Are we looking at a hidden public health crisis or a "D&D is harmful to some people" level of concern?
I think we should be doing a ton of research on the health implications of marijuana use. However, I don't think that should affect legality other than, perhaps, regulations on distribution. Legalization didn't happen on the back of "no long term health problems" it happened because throwing people in jail for a relatively non-addictive substance is unjust and eventually people had enough of it.<p>But the question does seem a bit silly. Like, yeah it's probably not totally salubrious to get blazed every day. No need to clutch pearls. It's also not healthy to get drunk every day or eat tubs of ice cream constantly but we feel as a society that the freedom to do those things is worth some of us overindulging and hurting ourselves.
The tragedy here is the medicinal benefits of the non-psychoactive portions haven't been getting effective research. Anecdotal evidence shows great potential there.<p>But meanwhile the dur-hurr, let's all get stoned crowd is pretending today's 20%+ THC weed is the same as what we might have enjoyed decades ago. It isn't and THAT is perhaps even less studied.<p>Criminalizing it to the extent that's happened is a whole other train-wreck.<p>So, yeah, bring on more testing and actual scientific study of it.<p>Stop trying to deflect the argument because it might actually reveal problems. There are problems. Let's have a better understanding of them AS we move forward.
While I'm for decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, I think jumping into an industry will create lots of problems and we'll find out about in the future. Whoever is skeptical will be best off IMHO.
"We don’t worry that e-cigarettes increase the number of fatal car accidents, diminish motivation and cognition, or impair academic achievement. The drugs through the gateway that we worry about with e-cigarettes are Marlboros, not opioids."<p>The casual manner in which Gladwell dismisses the danger of tobacco is jarring. Each year, tobacco is responsible for at least five times as many deaths as opioids are in the United States (480k vs 70-90k) [0][1]. Globally, tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year [2]. Although Gladwell has dismissed claims that he has shilled for the tobacco industry [3][4], his trivialization of the dangers of tobacco do not support that position.<p>Nevertheless, that does not undermine the argument that caution should be exercised with THC and other cannabinoids. It was prohibitively difficult in the past to do research on the compounds [5], so we should exercise humility when making definitive claims about them without further investigation.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates" rel="nofollow">https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco" rel="nofollow">https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/malcolm-gladwell-smoking_n_7757624.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/malcolm-gladwell-s...</a><p>[4] <a href="https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/" rel="nofollow">https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/</a><p>[5] <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/why-its-hard-do-marijuana-research-69753" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/why-its-hard-do-marijuana-research-...</a>
Marijuana is a soft drug like caffeine. For some people, caffeine is not a safe drug because they become addicted and have heart palpitations and lower quality of sleep. Marijuana is not safe in that it disrupts brain development in adolescents, exasperates psychosis with those who have mental health issues like schizophrenia, and lowers IQ with heavy daily usage. Moderation is key.
No it isn't and people seem to have this misconception that you cannot be addicted to marijuana or that people who do are of weak character which prevents them from seeking help. It is nowhere near as destructive as some drugs including alcohol, but there are psychological problems that come along with habitual use depending on how much that need to be studied and addressed.
I feel like the title of this article is a little misleading. It discusses a lot about the uncertain studies and potential dangers. However, it doesn't really talk about what people's conceptions of marijuana currently are.
tbh I only read the first several paragraphs... the medical community is completely ignorant about weed and its effects. Well no shit. Marijuana prohibition was a political, racially motivated decision. The American government decreed "no medical benefit" and forbade studies except for those that had a negative hypothesis, and strong-armed the rest of the world to follow suit. So the medical community is decades behind and the drug is a total mystery. This isn't remotely news. Now that science won't be censored in places such as Canada, we might learn something useful
When marijuana becomes legal, hiring tons of bio-engineers to improve your product also becomes legal. What if BigCorp(tm) manages to engineer marijuana so it becomes twice as addictive as it is now?