Posted on 03/30/2009 9:13:47 PM PDT by neverdem
Is marijuana less dangerous than alcohol?
(PhysOrg.com) -- It appears that when it comes to teen brain development, parents should be more worried about alcohol abuse than marijuana abuse. Two recent studies have been published showing that alcohol -- a legal substance (though not legal for teens in the U.S.) -- is considered more dangerous than marijuana, which is illegal in many countries.
One study has been published in the U.S., in the journal Clinical EEG and neuroscience: official journal of the EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ENCS), and shows that alcohol has a stronger effect on teen brain development than marijuana. The other is a study published in the Lancet, offering the results of substance classification by a number of U.K. professionals, purporting that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana to individuals and to society.
The U.S. study was undertaken by Squeglia, Jacobus and Tapert in a San Diego State University/University of California San Diego joint doctoral program. The study looks at teen brain development for its uniqueness, as well as for the effects that substance abuse has on the brain during this time. Because alcohol and marijuana are commonly used by high school students, it is little surprise that the study is interested in the brain abnormalities stemming from abuse of these substances.
When the brain abnormalities were measured -- seen in terms of brain functioning and structure, cognitive tasks and quality of white matter -- it appeared as though alcohol had a great effect than marijuana. Heavy drinking was defined 20 drinks per month, and the abnormalities were detectable. In heavy marijuana users, abnormalities existed, but not to the same degree as those seen in alcohol abusers.
Findings from the U.S. study, showing that alcohol use in teens causes more irregular brain function than marijuana, would seem to square with efforts in the U.K. to encourage new drug classification. In the Lancet, David Nutt at Bristol University, along with his colleagues, asked psychologists and scientifically or medically trained police to rank different substances according to how harmful they are. The study purports that experts rank alcohol (and tobacco) as more harmful than marijuana. In a list of 20 substances, alcohol came in at number five, tobacco came in at number nine, and marijuana/cannabis came in at number eleven.
These studies are likely to add fuel to movements in both the U.S. and the U.K. to re-classify marijuana. Supporters of fewer restrictions on marijuana will undoubtedly point to scientific studies that show we already legalize less dangerous substances.
© 2009 PhysOrg.com
Think of the person who would not put taking Ecstasy and riding a horse on the same level.
Must have been high when he wrote that.
I'm not familiar enough with the risks and injury statistics involved in either one to know whether that's a valid comparison or not.
Apart from the question of whether a person would more likely end up dead or injured from one than the other is the question of how one could morally equate the riding of a horse with taking a drug like Ecstasy.
A moral danger is not something to be overlooked.
Can you quantify “moral danger”, or is it just something that you allocate every possible significance to?
I saw that explanation, I was just teasing Iowamark a little bit.
Drug use is not moral behavior. Period.
And any discussion of the actual risk involved is over with.
Thanks for what you were able to contribute.
It was but a simple demonstation of the futility of applying reason to dogma.
Interesting, then, that Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine.
Was Jesus immoral ?
Do you equate drinking of wine at a wedding with drug use?
Were the disciples getting high at the last supper? Please!
What reasoning, what dogma?
Dogma - any finding of "moral hazard" renders any discussion of physical risk factor irrelevant.
Recognition of moral hazard is one way to prevent physical harm. Not engaging in homosexual behavior need not be based upon fear of physical harm since often often the physical harm from a certain behavior isn’t obvious immediately and may not occur in a dramatic way but the homosexual behavior is still immoral.
Falsely reasoning might say comparing the risks of two behaviors is possible by only addressing physical risk but that’s like saying someone is good driver solely on the basis of whether they’ve been involved in an accident or not.
Simply put, immorality is physically risky and the physical harm done by it is becoming ever clearer.
Okay. In any given risk assesment, “moral hazard” will be the first consideration. If there is any, it will be the only necessary consideration. Comparison of activites based on actual physical risk will be considererd only when any potential of moral hazard has been eliminated.
I wonder if it’s illegal to breathe second hand pot smoke — I love the way it smells...best I remember. It’s been years...when I lived in Houston.
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.