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.
How many cigarettes must one consume? Apparently they are far deadlier.
“Permanent damage for a first time user drinking a fifth?”
Well, I did not say anything about a “first time user”, but yes, drinking a fifth very quickly can certainly cause permanent organ damage, it happened to my sister. I notice your quotes are only about chronic liver-related illnesses. Acute organ damage (not limited to the liver) due to alcohol poisoning is not the same thing as those chronic ailments.
Well, that’s a tricky question. There was a study done, long ago, and I believe the result was something like if you ate 20 cigarettes in a short period of time, the result would be fatal. However, the methodology of that one study has been seriously questioned and I don’t think any other studies have really tried to get a better figure.
Hey! That was once.
From a cursory reading, it looks like they were comparing the LD50 for the active ingredient as a multiple of the typical dose used for recreational purposes. Not a very interesting comparison, since in all cases it neglects addictive potential and potential for non-lethal harm with prolonged use (although the ranking is amusing considering that alcohol is legal and the main argument against the legalization of opiates, heroine included, is overdose deaths).
what is happening to them is not psychological
they have ingested poison
Being able to get high from weed without incurring a hangover led me to drop drinking alcohol altogether. Pot was a much friendlier choice.
It isn’t a poison since there is no toxic level of it. The decision to seek medical help is certainly psychological since those who knowingly ingest pot don’t need medical attention and there is nothing medical that can be done about it. The only thing that is done for those who do go to a hospital is to give them reassurance that “everything will be alright.”
I’ve known potheads for 40 years and I can honestly say you can see the IQ dropping like a stone.
One thing to be done about it is to imprison people who gave them the toxic brownies without their knowledge.
That doesn’t sound like any medical treatment I’ve ever heard of physical or psychological.
Must be the cocoa.
—if I had a choice for my child tonight to smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, or smoke a joint, the joint would be last on the list.—
Why? Cigarettes are deadlier because you can literally be inhaling one the entire day you are awake. Alcohol is deleterious to every system in your body from the second you drink it until it leaves your system the next day. Cannabis? No one chain smokes it. No one gets into fist fights with their friends or family after using it.
Everyone laughs at those “hold muh beer” incidents, right? There’s no similar meme for cannabis.
This is stupit.. they did this by ranking by the amount of the drug it would take to kill you in any one time divided by the typical amount used during any one time?....
That a total crap way to rate.... like megadoseing rats to death to prove somethong is deadly... most anything is deadly in sufficient amount
you would look at long term cronic use .... like cigarettes are ... to make a valid test....
bttt
There was a CDC study some years ago on the number of deaths caused by various drugs that paralleled this one.
But it also included nicotine in the mix and more people died from smoking regular cigarettes than any other drug. Alcohol was second.
Its a strange and stupid situation where the recreational drugs that are legal kill multiple times more people than those that are the boogie man drugs for which millions go to jail.
In any sane society, if it was worth sending people to jail for using ‘dangerous drugs’ then all of us that enjoy our smokes or drinks would either be in jail or in hiding with our local dealer.
Funny thing is, it doesn’t HAVE to be deadly. Anything can be deadly. I can OD on water if I’m stupid enough to do it. Peanuts are deadly to some people. Avalanches are deadly to some people, but not to anyone who hasn’t been killed by one. These “studies” drive me up the wall. I’m in the wrong line of work. Wish I’d figured out how to get big bucks from the govt to do “studies”. What the frik ever.
Some people can drink or smoke pot without screwing up their lives. Other people can’t. Or have to work harder not to. This one size fits all crap is just that - crap.
Funny you should mention that. I'm pretty sure Laz has previously said that just makes him hot for the Dad, too. Or maybe it was the Mom...
Yeah, you're right. God probably just misspoke when He said "all seed-bearing plants," huh?
What are you smoking there, Sparky? You're not making a whole lotta sense.
So you and the drug dealers are what, devout and faithful Christians that want to promote eating water hemlock, and marijuana, and tobacco as food, in the name of Christ?
“And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food” (Genesis 1:29).
The command is not quite as broad as you indicated. Their diet was seed bearing plants and fruit trees. Poisonous plants did not come until later in response to man’s sin. “Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field” (Genesis 3:17-18). Prior to man’s fall, food was readily available. It didn’t require cultivating. After the fall, man’s food had to come from the field. In other words, he had to work at cultivating crops to have sufficient to eat. But along with this, there would now be plants would hinder production or not be good for food. Thorns and thistles are given as examples of these, but it would also include poisonous plants.
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.