Research undermines medical marijuana claims

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,190
4,296
743
Denver, CO
I am for all of that... but not at the risk of safety. The FDA exists because of tragic events (contaminated beef, contaminated aspirin, etc..). The CFR's are law because of tragic events. The FDA has oversight over everything from the milk you drink to the aspirin you take to the prescribed augmentin the Dr gives you. NONE of that would be safe if it weren't for the FDA and the CFRs. They do have their place. Sometimes regulations are actually a good thing.

And I've been arguing against "medical" marijuana... not full on legalization of drugs.



I was more specifically replying to this ^^^^^^^ quote. We have the FDA and the CFR's (Government) so that when a Manufacturer makes a food, a drug, a cosmetic, a medical device, you can feel confident it is safe for putting it in to your body.

You growing your own "something" to put in your own body without any oversight is a big difference than you buying a "something" mass produced by a manufacturer/grower without any oversight and then putting it in your body.
You were reading a meaning into my post that wasn't there and then proceeded to beat down a straw man. I never mentioned anything about the FDA or abolishing it. It has major problems, but serves a purpose.

The problem with the FDA with regard to pharmaceuticals has to do with how it is redundant for so many drugs. There really is not a reason to make a drug go through clinical trials in the US that has already passed clinical trials in the EU (or vice versa). There is no real reason (other than financial) to prevent purchasing drugs from other first world countries. Some regulations are good, but many are misguided or applied non-nonsensically to some drugs and not others. A drug that has been FDA approved usually is reasonably safe for the average person and reasonably effective. This doesn't mean it is so, especially when individual differences come into play.

Regardless, I think treating plants that have thousands of years of use without many known major side effects should fall under GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe by the FDA). This label is applied haphazardly and some deserving plants and herbs are skipped for no reason. This needs to be cleaned up.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,190
4,296
743
Denver, CO
There was a time when the prevailing medical thought was, "If it makes you feel good then it is good for you." That is obviously untrue, as we now know. It's true that morphine, heroin, cocaine, cannabis were all once OTC. There are good reasons why the are now not OTC. I don't think legalization will work any better now than it did then. "We know more now." If knowledge were protective then no pharmacist or physician would ever become an addict.
Legalization doesn't have to work well, it just has to work better than the drug war has. Its a pretty low bar to beat.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,368
2,069
743
Where else but Stillwater
There was a time when the prevailing medical thought was, "If it makes you feel good then it is good for you." That is obviously untrue, as we now know. It's true that morphine, heroin, cocaine, cannabis were all once OTC. There are good reasons why the are now not OTC. I don't think legalization will work any better now than it did then. "We know more now." If knowledge were protective then no pharmacist or physician would ever become an addict.
This retired cop disagrees with you. He thinks all drugs should be fully legal. He has seen how drug prohibition has caused more harm upon society than the drugs themselves. Get sales of those dangerous drugs off the streets and into regulated state stores.

 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,368
2,069
743
Where else but Stillwater
First day of pharmacy school in 1984, "The best medicine is no medicine. If we can treat something without exposing the patient to adverse effects we are usually better off." It is still true. Benefits have to clearly outweigh risks.
I wonder if decades later that is still taught? Or have Big Pharma companies entered the picture and saw to it that is no longer taught? Since then Big Pharma has sure been allowed to advertise some of their drugs on TV.
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
11,025
8,070
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
This retired cop disagrees with you. He thinks all drugs should be fully legal. He has seen how drug prohibition has caused more harm upon society than the drugs themselves. Get sales of those dangerous drugs off the streets and into regulated state stores.

I'm all about legalizing weed, but no way on meth, cocaine, heroin, PCP, LSD and probably a few I'm leaving out. I can't imagine any of that being sold in stores.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,190
4,296
743
Denver, CO
I'm all about legalizing weed, but no way on meth, cocaine, heroin, PCP, LSD and probably a few I'm leaving out. I can't imagine any of that being sold in stores.
Selling those drugs in a heavily regulated way would prevent impurities and potency issues, cripple cartels, and help save taxpayers money as it costs anywhere from $30 to $60k to imprison someone for a year. If half the funds that would have been spent on prison are spent on rehab programs instead (like Portugal did), it can help those who want to get clean. Thanks to Portugal we have an example that demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach: they halfed national addiction rates in one decade.

Putting addicts in prison does not help them get clean. I have an extended family member that is hooked on heroin and has been to prison several times. He is still using.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,515
2,313
1,743
This retired cop disagrees with you. He thinks all drugs should be fully legal. He has seen how drug prohibition has caused more harm upon society than the drugs themselves. Get sales of those dangerous drugs off the streets and into regulated state stores.

He's just flat out wrong. Consider basic human nature. Most people have very little self control and they struggle with addictive substances. Think about all the people that die from heart disease related to junk food and sugar addiction. Think about all the people that die from lung cancer due to smoking. Think about all the people that die from liver failure and traffic accidents related to alcohol. All in all, about 1 out of every 3 deaths can be linked to addiction in some form or fashion.

I'm sure legalizing everything would lower crime rates and incarceration rates drastically, but I hate to think how many people would die because of it. Anyone who thinks legalizing some of the most addictive substances on the planet would lead to safe and measured use is an idiot. We would see millions die from overdose and abuse.

You can make a strong argument for legalizing weed, but not the harder drugs.
 
Last edited:

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,766
16,190
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
He's just flat out wrong. Consider basic human nature. Most people have very little self control and they struggle with addictive substances. Think about all the people that die from heart disease related to junk food and sugar addiction. Think about all the people that die from lung cancer due to smoking. Think about all the people that die from liver failure and traffic accidents related to alcohol. All in all, about 1 out of every 3 deaths can be linked to addiction in some form or fashion.

I'm sure legalizing everything would lower crime rates and incarceration rates drastically, but I hate to think how many people would die because of it. Anyone who thinks legalizing some of the most addictive substances on the planet would lead to safe and measured use is an idiot. We would see millions die from overdose and abuse.

You can make a strong argument for legalizing weed, but not the harder drugs.
We probably disagree but I’m not sure that makes me an idiot, certainly there are other things that might but disagreement on this doesn’t.
What I am sure of is that the most addictive and destructive substances are already legal.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
63,139
46,510
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Most people have very little self control and they struggle with addictive substances.
This isn't true. Most people who use alcohol are able to use it casually without becoming alcoholics. Caffeine is the most widely used recreational substance in the world and caffeine-abuse is pretty doggone rare. The vast majority of people who take opioids for legitimate uses do not become addicts. The problem is there is no way for us to know a priori who will become addicts and who will not, and the social cost of addiction is pretty doggone high. Tobacco is about the only thing I'm aware of that most people who use it become dependent, because nicotine may be the most dependent-producing substance on the planet.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
63,139
46,510
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
What I am sure of is that the most addictive and destructive substances are already legal.
If you use "dependence-producing" instead of "addicting" then this is true, because nicotine may be the most dependence-producing substance on the planet. Destructive? Nicotine is more destructive than crystal meth? Okay, make the argument.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
63,139
46,510
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Time for a reminder:
So, heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and cocaine cause more harm than the most dependence-producing drug on the planet, nicotine, but the most harm is caused by the drug that produces the least dependence in that grouping. Just to remind you of the argument, it was "most addictive and destructive." It was not, "most addictive or destructive." Now, you're likely going to claim I'm playing semantic games, but when we're talking science such distinctives are important. Heroin, (crack) cocaine, and (crystal) meth are clearly more harmful than nicotine, which is more dependence-producing, and they are more dependence-producing than alcohol, which the vast majority of people use without either dependence or harm.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,190
4,296
743
Denver, CO
Also, several recent studies have discovered a link between consuming psychedelics and reduced violence/increased empathy. These are a handful of studies which warrant further investigation:

Psychedelic drugs may reduce domestic violence
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426091744.htm

The relationships of classic psychedelic use with criminal behavior in the United States adult population.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29039233/?i=1&from=lsd violent crime

They even appear to reduce risk of suicide:

Does psychedelic drug use reduce risk of suicidality? Evidence from a longitudinal community-based cohort of marginalised women in a Canadian setting
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/9/e016025

Why might this be the case? Psychedelics appear to incease empathy:

LSD Acutely Impairs Fear Recognition and Enhances Emotional Empathy and Sociality
https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201682

Effect of Psilocybin on Empathy and Moral Decision-Making.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28637246/

Hell, a study has even found they may decrease authoritarian political views:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881117748902

My point is, psychedelics are often viewed as "hard drugs" and lumped in with cocaine and heroin, but thanks to a slow lifting of study restrictions, we are find that they may have some pretty potent positive effects on mental health and wellbeing.
 
Last edited:

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,190
4,296
743
Denver, CO
So, heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and cocaine cause more harm than the most dependence-producing drug on the planet, nicotine, but the most harm is caused by the drug that produces the least dependence in that grouping. Just to remind you of the argument, it was "most addictive and destructive." It was not, "most addictive or destructive." Now, you're likely going to claim I'm playing semantic games, but when we're talking science such distinctives are important. Heroin, (crack) cocaine, and (crystal) meth are clearly more harmful than nicotine, which is more dependence-producing, and they are more dependence-producing than alcohol, which the vast majority of people use without either dependence or harm.
That is fair, semantics do matter quite a bit with this. My point was the alcohol has quite deleterious effects on society and it is legal. Its wide use adds to this.

There are plenty of illegal drugs that have far less negative impacts on society, and ai think we need to take a hard look at why.
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,515
2,313
1,743
We probably disagree but I’m not sure that makes me an idiot, certainly there are other things that might but disagreement on this doesn’t.
What I am sure of is that the most addictive and destructive substances are already legal.
This isn't true. Most people who use alcohol are able to use it casually without becoming alcoholics. Caffeine is the most widely used recreational substance in the world and caffeine-abuse is pretty doggone rare. The vast majority of people who take opioids for legitimate uses do not become addicts. The problem is there is no way for us to know a priori who will become addicts and who will not, and the social cost of addiction is pretty doggone high. Tobacco is about the only thing I'm aware of that most people who use it become dependent, because nicotine may be the most dependent-producing substance on the planet.
The most addictive harmful substance I know of is unhealthy food. Heart disease, stroke, and diabetes cause about 1 in every 3 deaths. If the general population can't control their eating habits, what makes you think they'll be able to safely manage meth or cocaine use? It's really hard for me to believe that if hard drugs were widely available to the general public that there wouldn't be more deaths than there are now. To me that argument is only valid if you trust people to use them safely and the vast majority to choose not to use them at all.

I apologize for the the using the word idiot. I didn't mean for that to come off the wrong way.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,766
16,190
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
If you use "dependence-producing" instead of "addicting" then this is true, because nicotine may be the most dependence-producing substance on the planet. Destructive? Nicotine is more destructive than crystal meth? Okay, make the argument.
I’d wager a large sum of money that alcohol has been more destructive than all other ingested substances combined. You’re straining at a gnat to swallow a camel here, I am the one who said, addictive and destructive, I actually didn’t mean that one substance had to be the most of both.
In truth, I don’t believe in addiction, I believe in the weakness of the human condition (I have my own thoughts on why people have thus weakness that I’ll keep to myself) but I do accept that what I call weakness others call addiction or as you’re referring to it, dependence producing. edit: I also acknowledge there can be a difference between, as you correctly pointed out, addiction and dependence producing.
Legalizing or simply decriminalizing all drugs would have a massive and (imo) substantially positive effect on our communities and wallets.
 
Last edited:

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
10,951
1,632
1,743
I’d wager a large sum of money that alcohol has been more destructive than all other ingested substances combined. You’re straining at a gnat to swallow a camel here, I am the one who said, addictive and destructive, I actually didn’t mean that one substance had to be the most of both.
In truth, I don’t believe in addiction, I believe in the weakness of the human condition (I have my own thoughts on why people have thus weakness that I’ll keep to myself) but I do accept that what I call weakness others call addiction or as you’re referring to it, dependence producing.
Legalizing or simply decriminalizing all drugs would have a massive and (imo) substantially positive effect on our communities and wallets.

Totally agree.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,368
2,069
743
Where else but Stillwater
Also, several recent studies have discovered a link between consuming psychedelics and reduced violence/increased empathy. These are a handful of studies which warrant further investigation:

Psychedelic drugs may reduce domestic violence
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426091744.htm

The relationships of classic psychedelic use with criminal behavior in the United States adult population.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29039233/?i=1&from=lsd violent crime

They even appear to reduce risk of suicide:

Does psychedelic drug use reduce risk of suicidality? Evidence from a longitudinal community-based cohort of marginalised women in a Canadian setting
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/9/e016025

Why might this be the case? Psychedelics appear to incease empathy:

LSD Acutely Impairs Fear Recognition and Enhances Emotional Empathy and Sociality
https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201682

Effect of Psilocybin on Empathy and Moral Decision-Making.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28637246/

Hell, a study has even found they may decrease authoritarian political views:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881117748902

My point is, psychedelics are often viewed as "hard drugs" and lumped in with cocaine and heroin, but thanks to a slow lifting of study restrictions, we are find that they may have some pretty potent positive effects on mental health and wellbeing.
Also, several recent studies have discovered a link between consuming psychedelics and reduced violence/increased empathy. These are a handful of studies which warrant further investigation:

Psychedelic drugs may reduce domestic violence
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426091744.htm

The relationships of classic psychedelic use with criminal behavior in the United States adult population.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29039233/?i=1&from=lsd violent crime

They even appear to reduce risk of suicide:

Does psychedelic drug use reduce risk of suicidality? Evidence from a longitudinal community-based cohort of marginalised women in a Canadian setting
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/9/e016025

Why might this be the case? Psychedelics appear to incease empathy:

LSD Acutely Impairs Fear Recognition and Enhances Emotional Empathy and Sociality
https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201682

Effect of Psilocybin on Empathy and Moral Decision-Making.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28637246/

Hell, a study has even found they may decrease authoritarian political views:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881117748902

My point is, psychedelics are often viewed as "hard drugs" and lumped in with cocaine and heroin, but thanks to a slow lifting of study restrictions, we are find that they may have some pretty potent positive effects on mental health and wellbeing.
Funny how this country has no fear about allowing drugs to be advertised on TV that come with the warning that they may make you feel like killing yourself.