Posted on 05/15/2019 6:15:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
Are “Varma and Sharma” just pen names for Cheech and Chong...?
So you're saying that, like The Pink Panther's Chief Inspector Dreyfus,
"Every day, in every way, you're getting better and better"...?
So the big revelation here is that marijuana is temporarily mind-altering? This is a no-sh**-Sherlock observation, and very different than the Reefer Madness hysteria on this thread.
It is when marijuana use increases as markedly as it has in many Western nations with no corresponding increase in psychosis, which said nations have been well equipped to measure.
An epidemiological study is a very academic and abstract method of looking for effects, full of complex confounding factors
So what confounding factor cancelled out the increase in psychosis due to increased marijuana use?
“So the big revelation here is that marijuana is temporarily mind-altering?”
In a manner consistent with the point of the article - that it can produce psychotic breaks (such as hallucinations or pathologically unrealistic beliefs), which can produce incoherent or criminal actions.
The full extent of those effects is not likely to be accurately measured, recorded or recognized.
“This is a no-sh**-Sherlock observation”
Marijuana is a mind altering drug - that can produce undesirable and criminal behaviors.
In most people, at typical doses, those risks are negligible, in high risk populations or at very high doses (like those made possible by extracts), increased undesirable outcomes are reliably predictable.
“So what confounding factor cancelled out the increase in psychosis due to increased marijuana use?”
Simply, people will not be diagnosed as psychotics, if the episode was a temporary, drug induced condition. A diagnosis of psychosis depends on it being an innate condition.
Marijuana does not cause permanent psychosis - but it can and does induce temporary psychosis, if the dose is high enough for the individual.
Anyone will hallucinate, given enough THC. We are not all therefore psychotics.
During a drug-induced psychotic incident, anyone is vulnerable to committing irrational actions - including violent criminal acts, such as those in the article.
What is a normal, harmless, recreational dose for most people, is enough to produce a psychotic episode in a borderline person. As you increase the dose, you increase the proportion of the population who will lose touch with reality. People handle drugs differently.
People also vary, in the content of their minds, and the nature of their personalities - some are happy drunks, some are mean drunks. Sado-masochists who lose touch with reality may drift toward different thoughts and actions from others, and so on...
I guess if you’re not willing to look at any of the evidence, you’ll come to that conclusion.
You've presented no evidence.
Not to hear some hysterical FReepers tell it.
some are happy drunks, some are mean drunks.
Yup - one should alter one's mind only with great care, if at all, and that's true regardless of the drug.
Heroin is more potent than opium. Crack has a higher content than chewing coca leaves. Which of these show greater harm to users?
Thanks for the reply.
I’m not against legalization; I’m just pointing out a serious downside that no one seems to be discussing. Legalization will lead to more people using and discovering that they are vulnerable.
One thing that might help—make dealers liable in civil courts.
I assume that the Feds will wade in at some point. When have they ever kept their fingers out of anything?
Bottom line: it’s money and taxes.
Look into CBD. It’s another chemical in marijuana that has been shown to be effective for back pain, as noted earlier, it’s thought to balance the effect of the THC when ingested together.
The claims seem exaggerated, and it is expensive, but CBD can be refined so that virtually no THC remains.
It can’t be worse than Tramadol, but you should really speak to a doctor familiar with the treatments. It’s still pretty new.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Tried CBD. Didn’t do a thing for me. But thanks!
Liquor has a much higher level of the drug alcohol than does beer; what of it?
Heroin is more potent than opium. Crack has a higher content than chewing coca leaves. Which of these show greater harm to users?
Intrinsically, neither - greater harm done by users to themselves is because they sought a greater effect. Marijuana users seeking the same buzz they're accustomed to will have reduced their volume intakes as potency has increased.
I can harm myself as little with a shot of liquor as with a mug of beer.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
You've amply demonstrated that you're a lazy ignorant blowhard. Thanks for the info.
One thing that might help—make dealers liable in civil courts.
Sellers can and should be required to disclose accurate and relevant information about risks; such a requirement can only be effectively enforced in a legal market. Such disclosure erases any subsequent liability for users who elected to assume those risks.
This is a tall order for Washington.
You mean a tall order for the state that is regulating it, not Washington DC, right?
I assume that the Feds will wade in at some point. When have they ever kept their fingers out of anything?
I strongly doubt the feds will intervene to block states from requiring disclosure of health risks. Are there any existing examples of such federal intervention?
Say hi to your friends at Big Marijuana for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.