Posted on 02/25/2015 11:28:41 AM PST by Wolfie
Marijuana is much safer than alcohol or tobacco, according to a new study
Marijuana is roughly 114 times less deadly than alcohol, according to recent findings published in the journal Scientific Reports. Of the seven drugs included in the study, alcohol was the deadliest at an individual level, followed by heroin, cocaine, tobacco, ecstasy, methamphetamines, and marijuana. Previous studies consistently ranked marijuana as the safest recreational drug, but it was not known that the discrepancy was this large.
The researchers determined the mortality risk by comparing a lethal dose of each substance with the amount typically used. Not only was marijuana the lowest of the drugs tested, but there was such a gap between its lethal and typical doses that they classified it as the only "low mortality risk" drug tested. All others were classified as "medium" or "high."
These findings contradict the efforts of law enforcement agencies around the country which, despite pockets of decriminalization (and in some cases, legalization), typically focus heavily on marijuana-related arrests. The authors suggest that, based on the results, these agencies would benefit from shifting priorities away from illicit drugs and placing them instead on keeping things like alcohol and tobacco in check. In fact, the researchers believe marijuana to be so low-risk that they suggest a broad, regulated legalization of it in the paper.
Attempts to compare the danger of particular drugs have been few and far between. It wasn't until the last decade that studies were done to classify the risk of drug abuse in a qualitative and quantitative manner, according to the authors. (They cite attempts at indexing the toxicity or ranking the harm of certain drugs as examples.) Before that, they claim, the risk assessment of drug abuse was instead based heavily on anecdotal evidence, which often meant that policy decisions were largely based on educated guesses.
The researchers clarified that the study does not suggest that moderate alcohol consumption poses a higher risk than regular heroin use. Environmental conditions, like dirty needles or unregulated supplies, contribute to the overall harm caused by using a drug like heroin. Instead, this study was specifically done to measure the deadliness of the substances themselves.
Measuring the IQ of someone before and after ten years of drinking a fifth of liquor, snorting cocaine, injecting heroin, or watching MSNBC for five hours straight every day would probably yield a similar if not worse result. Except for the last one finding survivors could be a challenge but the levels of induced dementia about the same.
Actually that proves the point you are arguing against. They OD on the purer product because they are not expecting it, and there is no labeling on the product, so they shoot their usual dose and find out too late that they shouldn’t have done that.
If it was legal, the potency would be printed right on the label, as it is for booze, and people would be less likely to make that mistake.
“Smoking marijuana reduces the sex drive.”
My scientifically conducted experiments indicate otherwise. Of course at that stage of my life about the only thing that could dampen my sex drive was a father with a 12 gauge.
Another study to prove the obvious. I want a grant to study which is faster, horses or cars.
Sure, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Their methodology is not designed to encompass all the factors that can lead to fatalities, only the factors that may lead to acute overdose fatalities. So, looking at total deaths attributed to the substances is not comparable to what the study is trying to measure. We don’t know how many alcohol users, for example, died from overdose, versus from cirrhosis. Nor do we know how many heroin deaths were attributed to overdose, versus infected abscesses.
The reason a heroin user might be more likely to overdose on a purer shot is because they are accustomed to using the drug in adulterated form. If they are not aware that the particular supply of the drug they are preparing to use is more pure than they are accustomed to, they will likely use the same amount of the drug (which is not the same thing as the same dosage); and thereby ingest a much higher dose than they are accustomed to.
Unregulated supplies of widely varying purity ARE the primary risk factor for heroin overdose among users. Some would call that risk the "cost of doing business".
Classic red herring.
The issue is not if dope is deadly.
When? I'm almost 60. That would be a blessing if it were true.
That depends on if we're talking normal cars, or CA-emissions/EPA cars.
;)
I did stoned and stupid for several years when I was young. I disagree strongly that pot is less harmful than booze or tobacco. STRONGLY!!!
Maureen Dowd ODed on a THC laced candy bar and the FReepers laughed that she got too much. It wasn’t a single serve candy bar. The purity was too strong.
Like drink an 8oz bottle of Everclear thinking it was a beer.
But somehow only demon alcohol leads to overdose, not pot infused products.
“But somehow only demon alcohol leads to overdose, not pot infused products.”
That’s foolishness. Of course you can overdose on pot products, but you cannot lethally overdose. You can “freak out”, have some psychological effects, maybe even a mental breakdown, I suppose, but you won’t end up dead, no matter how much pot you consume.
On the other hand, chug a fifth and, unless you are lucky, you are likely to have permanent organ damage, at the least.
Apparently there is some level at which you can die from it because that is what this study is tallying, no?
Not the level at which a survivable OD occurs.
3 oz of candy bar vs 3 oz of pure alcohol.
So a study wouldn’t be so ridiculous!?! I’ll need $250k for start up money. Deliver to room #405 at the Drunken Monkey Hotel in Aruba. Unmarked bills please.
people who did not know they consumed it are being hospitalized, that ain’t psychological
Permanent damage for a first time user drinking a fifth?
Watch Alcohol Madness too many times? One puff/sip is all it takes!
Fatty liver is the earliest stage of liver disease marked by accumulation of fat in the liver cells. This occurs almost in all people who drink heavily...Fatty liver does not cause serious damage to liver function and these changes are reversible if alcohol consumption is stopped.
Continued drinking may lead to more severe involvement called alcoholic hepatitis. About 10 to 35 percent of heavy drinkers develop the condition.... This stage is also reversible and patients may recover completely, provided no further insult occurs with alcohol.
Liver cirrhosis is the more serious form of alcoholic liver disease and is irreversible. At this stage healthy liver tissues are replaced by scar tissues and the liver is not able to perform its normal vital functions.
About 10 to 20 percent of heavy drinkers usually develop cirrhosis after 10 or more years. Generally, drinking 80 grams of ethanol daily for 10 to 20 years is required to develop cirrhosis which corresponds to approximately one liter of wine, eight standard sized beers, or one half pint of hard liquor each day.
Yes, it is psychological. Do you not think that people go to the hospital when suffering acute psychological symptoms?
That is proof that it is psychological. People who know they’ve ingested pot don’t need to go to the hospital. People who unknowingly ingest it don’t know what is happening and seek help. That’s just the common sense thing to do.
“Apparently there is some level at which you can die from it because that is what this study is tallying, no?”
That seems to be what the study is basing their ratios on, but if there is a fatal level of toxicity for marijuana, it must be something well beyond the feasible ability of a person to consume, since those fatalities never occur. Not even from potheads who smoke it morning, noon, and night, and there are plenty of those. Nor even from eating consumables, which have been legal for decades in Amsterdam, so we should have seen it happen there if it were possible.
The only fatalities I have ever heard of that can be directly attributed to marijuana (not including accidents, etc), were due to allergic reactions. Yet, allergic reactions are caused by the immune system, not by the product that triggers them, so that is not the same as toxicity.
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.