Decrim Petition

[shockmonster]

In your book everything rosy. In real life, not so. But you keep up your belief in this social experiment. I'm sure that in time that you (and others who may be stoners) will prove me wrong and it'll end well. If not, oh well. :)

[wufan]

I tend to want to know who pays for studies. I don't tend to believe either the "pot is evil" studies or the "pot is harmless" studies.

The pharmaceutical industry produces a vast array of extremely addictive substances that are regularly prescribed by doctors. When I was being treated for cancer, I was probably prescribed a dozen different drugs that are virtually impossible to quit once your body is accustomed to having the drug present.

Pharmaaceutical companies are also very good at funding research that incorrectly shows their drugs are safe to be prescribed by doctors. Daytime television is virtually funded by ads for drugs and ads for lawyers filing class action suits against the pharmaceuticals for doing flawed safety studies and getting FDA approval to release drugs that do horrible things to people taking them. Anybody remember Fen fen - the miracle diet pill that killed people.

Studies of pharmaceuticals are done by "independent" labs. Those labs funding is based on doing ongoing research on the effects of pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical companies are free to choose the "independent" lab that does their studies. Pharmaceutical labs are only "independent" because they are not part of the corporation that makes the products they test.

If you believe your prescribed drugs are safe and free from any side effects other than those listed on the label, you probably believe the political ads candidates from both parties are running right now. The deception is at similar levels.

Here's a personal example. I got all the warnings, lectures, and side effects explanations from my doctors before I started my chemo. I had to sign waivers stating I understood and accepted the risks. Not once did destroying all my bone marrow and totally destroying my immune system get mentioned. My research while I was being treated indicated that would happen, so I asked my doctor. He nonchalantly said (basically), "Oh, yeah, your bone marrow has all been dead for a while now. You have no immune system, so be careful around sick people". The chemo drugs I was getting weren't labeled as destroying bone marrow, because that wasn't discovered during the testing phase. The doctors knew that happened, but they aren't supposed to tell you things that aren't on the FDA-approved label, since that informtion is just anecdotal.

FWIW, bone marrow destruction would not be considers a side effect. Side effects are generally symptomatic in nature and one does not feel the symptom of "dead bone marrow". Also, pharmaceutical studies do not require an independent lab to do the studies (at least none that I'm aware of). The studies are reviewed by an independent lab, sometimes a government lab, but often a contract lab. Contract labs that do not confirm results aren't contracts very long.

[wufan]

The article quoted above is a politically motivated reaction to a scientific paper. Without the paper it has no substance. For instance:

Claim is that Marijuana smokers are twice as likely to get a psychotic disorder. However, it's not mentioned that patients with psychotic disorders are three to four times as likely to abuse drugs as healthy population. My question is; does smoking dope lead to psychosis, or do psychotic patients self medicate?

The answers are in the scientific research, not the conclusions of media sensationalists.

[shockmonster]

The answers are in the scientific research, not the conclusions of media sensationalists.

Actually, the answers are in the results and consequences that happen with the experiments in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. If we would stand back and allow them to happen for 10 years and see what happens and the social consequences, etc. that occur, that would be fine. But there is an element that want their side to win and the consequences be damned. Then they will say that "the barn door has been opened" and we can't go back now. This happens all the time with a matter of societal problems (immigration, welfare, Obama Care, etc.). This is how bad decisions become a part of our culture.

[Play Angry]

In your book everything rosy. In real life, not so. But you keep up your belief in this social experiment. I'm sure that in time that you (and others who may be stoners) will prove me wrong and it'll end well. If not, oh well. :)

Some old folks are just too stubborn and afraid of change to debate things logically. Best to just pat them on their sweet little heads and nod approvingly.















See how annoying that is?

[wufan]

Actually, the answers are in the results and consequences that happen with the experiments in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. If we would stand back and allow them to happen for 10 years and see what happens and the social consequences, etc. that occur, that would be fine. But there is an element that want their side to win and the consequences be damned. Then they will say that "the barn door has been opened" and we can't go back now. This happens all the time with a matter of societal problems (immigration, welfare, Obama Care, etc.). This is how bad decisions become a part of our culture.

What?

[Kung Wu]

Claim is that Marijuana smokers are twice as likely to get a psychotic disorder. However, it's not mentioned that patients with psychotic disorders are three to four times as likely to abuse drugs as healthy population. My question is; does smoking dope lead to psychosis, or do psychotic patients self medicate?

This is from the abstract of the actual research paper:

In the early 1990s in Australia (as elsewhere) there were strongly polarized views on the health effects of cannabis. The published appraisals of the limited evidence were refracted through the prism of the appraisers' preferred policies towards cannabis (decriminalization or legalization of personal use versus intensified public education and law enforcement campaigns to discourage use). We adopted the following approaches to maximize the chances that our review would be seen as credible by advocates of these very different competing public policies towards cannabis use.

First, Nadia Solowij, Jim Lemon and I applied the standard rules for making causal inferences about the health effects of any drug to cannabis. That is, we looked for: (i) epidemiological evidence of an association between cannabis use and the health outcome in case–control and prospective studies; (ii) evidence that reverse causation was an implausible explanation (e.g. evidence from prospective studies that cannabis use preceded the outcome); (iii) evidence from prospective studies that had controlled for potential confounding variables (such as other drug use and characteristics on which cannabis users differed from non-users); and (iv) clinical and experimental evidence which supported the biological plausibility of a causal relationship [9].

Emphasis mine. Determining whether your population exhibits psychoses at a similar rate to the rest of society at the start of the trial, and comparing the final percent of pot smokers developing psychoses compared with society is a piece of cake.

[Kung Wu]

The article quoted above is a politically motivated reaction to a scientific paper. Without the paper it has no substance.

Here is a super high-level summary of the research taken directly from the research abstract. The link to the abstract is below:

Results

Research in the past 20 years has shown that driving while cannabis-impaired approximately doubles car crash risk and that around one in 10 regular cannabis users develop dependence. Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school-leaving and of cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood. Regular cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs. These associations persist after controlling for plausible confounding variables in longitudinal studies. This suggests that cannabis use is a contributory cause of these outcomes but some researchers still argue that these relationships are explained by shared causes or risk factors. Cannabis smoking probably increases cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged adults but its effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear, because most cannabis smokers have smoked or still smoke tobacco.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/add.12703/

[1972Shocker]

In your book everything rosy. In real life, not so. But you keep up your belief in this social experiment. I'm sure that in time that you (and others who may be stoners) will prove me wrong and it'll end well. If not, oh well. :)

I have a story I could tell but it's very painful and I'm not sure I have the strength to share the details of that story. Let me just say that there is no doubt in my mind that marijuana can lead to very destructive behavior and actions, especially by teenagers, and that I hope none of you ever have to endure what my wife and I have had to deal with over the last several years related to marijuana use by teenagers. A perpetual nightmare that will be with us till we leave this earth and one that has brought a great deal of mental anguish to many families. I will leave it at that. Judge as you will but don't think you have immunity.

Whether the destructive behavior is due to the marijuana or to a flawed human specimen I don't know. Whether those flaws are due to nature or nurture is sometimes hard to say but it could probably be either or both and will vary from case to case. I doubt that marijuana used recreationally and in moderation (and in my book that would be a once or twice per week user) is any worse than moderate and recreational use of alcohol. Prohibition did not work well with alcohol either. People are going to do what they want to do.

I certainly don't speak from any first hand experience. I have never used marijuana. I drink an occasional beer or have a very occasional glass of wine. So perhaps I am too much of a nerd to have a valuable opinion.

I would probably vote for decriminalization assuming appropriate limitations and penalties for negligent use are in place. Retain the prohibition for providing to minors (under age 21). Penalties for minors should be primarily financial and community service in nature. Although you know they are going to use just like they use alcohol and some will have problems. Apply the same DUI treatment for marijuana as we do to alcohol.

Yes some users will become addicted and overuse just like some do with alcohol. Some will move on to stronger, illegal substances. This will leave to destructive and dysfunctional behavior with negative consequences in some cases. Not sure there is anything we can do to really change that as long as human beings are involved. As I have testified that is already happening with our current system. Would decriminalization make things worse. I don't know. Could not be worse for me personally.

I would use marijuana for medical purposes if that was the best option. Otherwise, I simply have no desire or need to even try it. Perhaps my addiction and love of Shocker sports is my marijuana. If so, another reason to be thankful I'm a WheatShocker.

[wufan]

This is from the abstract of the actual research paper:



Emphasis mine. Determining whether your population exhibits psychoses at a similar rate to the rest of society at the start of the trial, and comparing the final percent of pot smokers developing psychoses compared with society is a piece of cake.

I think those are good variables to control for and thank you for posting them. There's still no causal basis for results, but correlation can be inferred. Sadly, that's the best that most health studies can offer on any subject.

[DanielBryan]

I think those are good variables to control for and thank you for posting them. There's still no causal basis for results, but correlation can be inferred. Sadly, that's the best that most health studies can offer on any subject.

You obviously haven't kept up with society. We learned with alcohol that prohibition doesn't work. Yet we have many children who don't have access to the medicine they need to keep them live, CBD oil. Yet almost everyone wants to impose their opinions/politics on others rather than look at the proven science that it cures epilepsy, glaucoma, cancerous cells, etc.

[shockmonster]

What?

Are you stupid? Sorry if you can't read.


Several states are already experimenting with legalized marijuana (I'm not even talking decriminalization) for recreational use. The smart thing for the remainder of the states to do would be to step back and see what happens (with long term data) with youths using marijuana, unintended consequences (such as homelessness, other social problems increasing) because we can't go back.

[Aargh]

I attended WSU in the late '60's and early '70's. I was a dormie - lived in Brennan, Wheatshocker and Fairmount. I missed some time for participation in a military exercise active at that time. When I came back from my military participation, I don't know about the commuter students, the live-at-home part-time adult students, or the frats, but the dorms and the renters south of campus ...the non-users were the minority. I knew A LOT of pot smokers.

I've probably known over 100 pot smokers who quit. I've never seen any evidence of withdrawl. Some struggled a bit because they liked getting stoned and didn't want to give up that relaxation and enjoyment, but it wsa nothing like quitting smoking or an alcoholic giving up booze.

Take a 20-year study on almost anything and you're going to find problems. Welbutrin, Chantix, oxycontin, Lyrica, and a host of other common medications are brutal over a 20-year usage. Tobacco and alcohol have no beneficial qualities and a plethora of negative effects, but they're legal. Do a 20-year study on those and you'll find horror stories. The primary side effect of marijuana is a feeling of relaxation and happiness. I'm willing to give that choice to people, but I expect them to be responsible in pursuing that. Just like I expect them to be responsible in their use of other drugs they use for the same effect - alcohol.

In my experience, I'd much sooner be around bunch of people who've been smoking pot than be around a bunch of people who've been drinking alcohol. The alcohol consumers are more prone to erratic and violent behavior. The marijuanaa smokers are more likely to sit in a chair, listen to some music, say some things that make no sense, and from time to time laugh for no apparent reason.

I've given the topic considerable study and have some personal experience. Compared to alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocaine, crack, ecstasy, and crystal meth, marijuana is relatively harmless. I say that even though I don't have experience with all of those.

By criminalizing pot, it is associated with meth, cocaine, and heroin. Teens are regularly exposed to marijuana and that is often their first illegal drug. Pot isn't the evil drug out of "Reefer Madness" that it's been made out to be and they are smart enough to figure that out. Pots' association with the hard drugs and the marketing of the hard drugs by the same dealers who sell pot is probably the major factor in marijuana being considered a gateway drug.

[wufan]

Are you stupid? Sorry if you can't read.


Several states are already experimenting with legalized marijuana (I'm not even talking decriminalization) for recreational use. The smart thing for the remainder of the states to do would be to step back and see what happens (with long term data) with youths using marijuana, unintended consequences (such as homelessness, other social problems increasing) because we can't go back.

I was trying to figure out your response to me when what I was talking about was the answer to the article. You were obviously talking about something else. I felt that a simplistic response of "What?," was appropriate to your response about social experimentation. Thank you for pointing my stupidity and illiteracy. I will return to my coloring books now.

[wufan]

You obviously haven't kept up with society. We learned with alcohol that prohibition doesn't work. Yet we have many children who don't have access to the medicine they need to keep them live, CBD oil. Yet almost everyone wants to impose their opinions/politics on others rather than look at the proven science that it cures epilepsy, glaucoma, cancerous cells, etc.

I need more coloring books.