States Allowing Medical Marijuana Have Fewer Painkiller Deaths

An anonymous reader writes: Narcotic painkillers aren't one of the biggest killers in the U.S., but overdoses do claim over 15,000 lives per year and send hundreds of thousands to the emergency room. Because of this, it's interesting that a new study (abstract) has found states that allow the use of medical marijuana have seen a dramatic reduction in opioid overdose fatalities. "Previous studies hint at why marijuana use might help reduce reliance on opioid painkillers. Many drugs with abuse potential such as nicotine and opiates, as well as marijuana, pump up the brain's dopamine levels, which can induce feelings of euphoria. The biological reasons that people might use marijuana instead of opioids aren't exactly clear, because marijuana doesn't replace the pain relief of opiates. However, it does seem to distract from the pain by making it less bothersome." This research comes at a time when the country is furiously debating the costs and benefits of marijuana use, and opponents of the idea are paying researchers to paint it in an unfavorable light.

Comments

Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the War on Drugs was a complete waste of time and money and ruined millions of peoples' lives for no reason, while funneling billions of dollars a year to ruthless criminal warlords in South America?

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[dpilot]

We will not solve the problem with illegal immigration until we figure out how to do something sane instead of the War on Drugs. Right now the unintended consequence of the War on Drugs is that south of the border, drug lords are about as well (if not better?) funded as the governments, destroying the local economies. Some of the people seeking jobs in those economies end up coming to the US in search of work.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

The War on Drugs was targeted towards societal changes as a way to cut them off by giving a legal means to attack their perceived underpinnings

Marijuana and hallucinogens were seen as being a part (if not the cause) of the societal changes in the 50's and 60's and the laws that set both of those classes of drugs as the most dangerous and addictive were based on the expectations of the conservative norms of the day.

Like so many things it takes decades to reverse the regressive mistakes of panic-driven politics

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[schlachter]

while funneling billions of dollars a year to ruthless criminal warlords in South America?

...and biotech firms

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the damage can ever be repaired. Good luck legalizing hallucinogens or getting the anti-terror genie back in the bottle, ever.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[s.petry]

I won't argue that the war on drugs is a huge failure, but that's a different argument in my opinion. The primary argument here is whether or not marijuana legalization has reduced deaths from prescriptions.

Given legalization is extremely new, the conclusion of the article and study is grossly premature. Making matters worse in my opinion, is that the study only looks at a single element of drugs, and not the complete impact.

As with my opening paragraph, I'm not pro drug war or anti marijuana. I simply think that these types of studies would be better to include other impacts, because in 3 years the stats may show something completely different. Studies should include things like crime reduction and savings to law enforcement due to crime reduction, local economy impact (Dorito sales!!), overall health of patients receiving and using medical marijuana, etc...

The war on drugs is a failure for many reasons, and single impact studies won't flesh all of those out.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[flyingsquid]

The War on Drugs has been a failure- it's put millions of people in prison, cost our society billions of dollars, and fueled honest-to-God warfare in South America and Mexico- and Americans are slowly starting to realize this. That being said, I think we're running the risk of having things swing too far in the other direction. There seems to be this attitude out there that pot is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up. I know people from high school who used to smoke once in a while, and they're fine- productive members of society, good spouses, good parents, etc. I also know people who went on to smoke weed daily for many years... and they're just not all there anymore. They're always in a pretty good mood, but it seems disconnected from what's going around. They're hard to connect to, they can't seem to empathize with other human beings, they seem scattered and their thought processes tend to run wild; there's a lot of creativity but they lack the focus to do anything with it. The PSAs were right: drugs DO fry your brain.

I think alcohol and Prohibition are a good parallel here. Prohibition was clearly a disaster, and when used in moderation, alcohol is harmless and probably even beneficial. But long-term, daily use of alcohol in high volumes can really screw you up. All things in moderation. Just because you can't OD on pot doesn't mean it's safe to take as much as you want as long as you want.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[TarPitt]

Like Prohibition - which was not so much anti-alcohol, as a white rural reaction against the growing dominance of urban areas and their populations of (beer drinking) immigrants. It was an early form of our culture wars, with the drugs acting as a proxy for reaction against deeper social changes.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, thank you for demonstrating the step the prohibitionists are taking as a fall-back position to the whole 'that ain't the same pot you smoked back in the day', and 'pot causes mental illness' from their all-or nothing smoke pot and your a dangerous criminal stance

admittedly it is an improvement, but it is disingenuous in that it is just an attempt to maintain a source of cash flow through fear

while I agree that many of the rules regarding alcohol use should apply to marijuana (regulation, taxation, limits on use regarding vehicles), I do not agree that the effects of marijuana use are a dangerous as those of alcohol use

and the use of legal, regulated marijuana is certainly less dangerous that using 'illegal' marijuana in states where you will be subjected to a black market and arrest by law enforcement

it has been demonstrated in Australia (comparing between states where pot is illegal and legal) that the most dangerous and long term effects of marijuana use are in states where it is illegal and arrest leads to poor education and job outcomes

that is to say that the enforcement against the drug is more harmful than the drug

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Yakasha]

You mean the War on Drugs was a complete waste of time and money and ruined millions of peoples' lives for no reason, while funneling billions of dollars a year to ruthless criminal warlords in Washington D.C.?

tiftfy.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[penguinoid]

You mean the War on Drugs was a complete waste of time and money and ruined millions of peoples' lives for no reason, while funneling billions of dollars a year to ruthless criminal warlords in South America?

No, it was complete waste of time and money and ruined millions of peoples' lives for the purpose or reducing freedom and privacy, while funneling billions of dollars a year to black ops funding, police department funding, and ruthless criminals everywhere.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[The Good Reverend]

Given legalization is extremely new, the conclusion of the article and study is grossly premature. Making matters worse in my opinion, is that the study only looks at a single element of drugs, and not the complete impact.

California legalized marijuana 18 years ago, in 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[rtb61]

And for all those who die in the interim, 'MEH' something in the hundreds of thousands globally and the tens of millions who continue to suffer in pain but think about the pharmaceutical companies profits, the billions lost (or more accurately left in people's pockets rather than being extorted out to pay for patented pain relief), apparently your thought for them is, 'fuck you there is money to be made' at least three years worth and that's without the lobbyists and a religion based ban, 'WOOHOO" billions more profits.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[s.petry]

Yeah, and the ATF and DEA were still raiding shops as recently as 2 years ago in spite of California's laws legalizing marijuana. Normalization is not recent.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[mspohr]

The war on drugs is a war on black people. It's a convenient way to lock them up. White people use (abuse) drugs at a higher rate than black people but get busted at a much lower rate.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[s.petry]

I didn't say it was bad to have some statistics, I said it was bad to have this study focus on one statistic. You know as well as I do that if the numbers are off, people against legalization will jump all over the study just to wreak havoc on the legalization. Illegal marijuana was (and in many places still is) a huge revenue source for both the criminal side and the law enforcement side (and yes, we would probably agree that the line between those two elements is crossed very often).

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[LoRdTAW]

" There seems to be this attitude out there that pot is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up."

Replace pot with Alcohol, cigarettes, HFC's, video games, etc. and its pretty much the same thing. How far can it swing in the other direction? You mentioned alcohol has bad long term effects. But despite this people still drink themselves to death, drive drunk and kill others or get killed, or become a raging ass holes causing mayhem. People still smoke cigarettes despite the exorbitant cost and adverse health effects including cancer. People still drink gallons of soda and sugar crap until their pancreas packs it in and shuts down. People play video games until they loose their jobs, wives, kids and home or in some cases, until they drop dead. There is nothing the government can do at that point other than prohibit it these things and we all know how that works out. It's either all with some restrictions (don't drive and you must be 18 years old).

The people have to be the ones to use judgement. If someone smokes so much weed and they fry their brains then that is their fault. Just like the old 65yo blue collar retiree who spends every night at the bar downing 6+ pints until his liver fails (know a guy who this just happened to. sad). People have to be educated and they have to be smart.

Oh and I can counter your burn out pot head story with an anecdote of my own: I have a friend who at one point worked two jobs and got a degree at the same time. I asked him how he did it his answer was "Copious amounts of marijuana bro." He smokes in the morning, on his way to work while at work and at home. He is very energetic, driven and lively. Quite the opposite of your theory. So it of course depends on the person.

I have also known people who smoked a lot and were fucked up because they were fucked up to begin with. You just always assumed they were messed up because of the pot but meanwhile you never really knew them well enough and they were messed up in the head to begin with. I worked with a kid who would go berserk is he didn't smoke and he smoked all the time. If he drank he was VIOLENT. A night out with him meant he was going to get into a fight and usually win because he was a hulk of a man. Turns out his father was exposed to chemical warfare agents while in nam and had a lot of mental issues including PTSD. His father ambushed him and his mother with a knife thinking they were Vietcong which promptly ended that marriage. He also had a very dysfunctional life and had a lot of really fucked up friends (I mean what friend tells you to fuck their own mother because she thinks your cute and lets you actually follow through? Yea, those were his friends. They gave me the heebie jeebies). The smoking was probably medicating him.

In the end legalizing it will create new problems but they will be far more petty than what we have today. We can rid ourselves of a large amount of violent crime, people in jail and money spent on ruining lives while fattening the wallets of war machine peddlers. I'd rather live in a world full of cheery burnouts than drug gangs chopping peoples heads off with box cutters and chain saws, prisons bursting at the seams with inmates who just become more angry and make plenty of angry new friends they can do business with once they get out and government paramilitary goons wielding surplus military hardware shooting first and asking questions later (oops! no drugs here. Sorry for shooting your dog and father, kids. Have a nice life!). Legalize it, please.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[drinkypoo]

The War on Drugs has been a failure- it's put millions of people in prison, cost our society billions of dollars, and fueled honest-to-God warfare in South America and Mexico-

The War on Drugs has been a complete success. It's put millions of people in prison (At significant profit to certain sectores), funneled millions of dollars to contractors at a cost to society of billions of dollars (to say nothing of the lost lives) and fueled honest-to-God warfare in South and Central America, ensuring a steady supply of cheap labor and a fairly effective barrier which deters most Norteamericanos from migrating South to more friendly environments like Panama or Costa Rica by car, van, bus, or box truck.

I think alcohol and Prohibition are a good parallel here.

Sigh. If you really understood the situation as well as you think you do, you'd know that the people behind the "War on Drugs" were completely aware of the results of prohibition; it doesn't matter if it's of alcohol or marijuana. They knew that it increased demand and literally created a profitable criminal class.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[greg1104]

If you take someone who's inclined to take drugs heavily for an extended period, it's kind of naive to think they wouldn't have done that simply if their drug of choice today is taken away. The people you know who are fried from smoking could just have easily been messed up painkillers and anti-depressants if weed wasn't there for them.

Re: Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[macs4all]

"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."

I call Shennanigans.

1. Tests for THC Metabolites (which are ALL that the drug tests measure (rather than the incorrectly-stated delta-9 THC), have ZERO ability to determine whether a person was "high" at the time of the accident). That is because those Metabolites (but NOT the effects of the drug) stay in a typical human's bloodstream for weeks after the last "dose"; so, a statement regarding their presence in traffic accident "participants" has as much to do with establishing a causal relationship as mentioning their shoe size as a contributing factor.

2. The anti-marijuana bias of that "study", and that of the person who propounds it, is transparently p, and laughably, evident by including "motor vehicle crash victims" (other than drivers). So what now? We have a new classification of negligence called "RIDING while high"??? Yeah, those people SURELY should be included in a study if impaired DRIVING...

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sillybilly]

I wish they let adults of consenting age buy any medication even without a doctor's prescription, from licensed pharmacies. Such as penicillin. As some doctors won't prescribe it for you even when you truly need it,(but they still rape you in the ass with a consultation bill, or fees over blood tests that have no been performed properly) and then you have to go on a fishing expedition, it comes down to finding or knowing a corrupt enough doctor to prescribe it for you. It's all bullshit, sustained by a corrupt government and the buddy system that permeates health care. It takes a lot of years of residency to get accepted into the gang as a doctor, and the long testing pretty much comes down to testing you as a doctor if you're willing to live with the system of lies of pretending to know what the fuck is wrong with the patient, when the only way they have a flying fucking clue is if they intentionally infected that patient with a known something.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sillybilly]

Every time you go to the doctors, like with a throat infection, it's always a blood test, with simple shit. Like sodium, glucose. Then they go oh, your potassium is too low, let me bring you a potassium supplement, and rape you in the ass with the fee for it. Dude, I can eat a fucking banana or potato and get an overdose of potassium supplement, I'm here to get help with the real problem I have, not with your stupid standard blood test of I don't give a fuck about patients, I'm just here for the money. With a throat infection there is a smear test, and a culture. Not a fucking blood test. I should have sued their asses over such incompetence, hell, a couple million dollars for not being shy charging patients insane amounts for diddly squat. And now Obamacare wants me to support these incompetent fuckers! Fuck Obamacare. In fact fuck all insurance, they are all fucking scam artists, because they charge too fucking much. Just look at who owns all the fancy buildings where you live - banks, insurance companies - always the scam artists who don't really create much, but know how to suck the living life blood out of the economy.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[hrvatska]

THC being present in a person's system is a poor indicator that they were high on THC at the time of an accident. THC can show up in drug tests for weeks after person last consumed it and the mental effects have long since dissipated. How many of those people with THC in their systems involved in accidents also had elevated levels of alcohol or other drugs in their systems? Rather than use a very inaccurate measure like the mere presence of THC in the blood, why not look at vehicular fatality rates in states that have legalized medical marijuana or legalized recreational marijuana? What happened to traffic fatality rates in California since it legalized medical marijuana? What has happened to traffic fatality rates in Colorado since legal recreational marijuana has been available?

Re: Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

Yes, no bias in your reaction, though.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

Actually, you've framed a great representation of the problem between intoxicants. Alcohol, being the most dangerous of those ready intoxicants, has the property of having a somewhat tested method of measuring whether your system is effected. THC flushing varies between persons drastically and I've seen evidence that it remains at wildly different rates depending on your physical makeup. I wish there were better studies available on THC (and its effects) flushing. If anyone has access to one here please provide a link.

Rather than use a very inaccurate measure like the mere presence of THC in the blood, why not look at vehicular fatality rates in states that have legalized medical marijuana or legalized recreational marijuana?

Both outcomes you've described mean nothing to dead people. I'd rather have someone produce a test that communicates impairment to drive to the person or law enforcement testing that person.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

Agreed. I think a "War on Drug Users" and a "War that Enables Free Confiscation of US Citizens' Property" are more appropriate labels. If it were a war on drugs we would take strike teams to the cartel members (Mexican government?) and remove the source. The US populace wouldn't have known about the largest meth lab in the world sitting 100 miles south of San Diego for two decades. Sigh.

Google: largest meth lab mexico

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

There are stories on both sides of the aisle. My grandfather was dying of fatal painful colon cancer when the doctor refused to give him any more morphine because the federal regulations indicted he would be considered an addict at that point of consumption. I doubt marijuana would have helped him there but I empathize with people in those positions.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[milkmage]

no, but the prisons are full of people who are in for simple possession.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[hrvatska]

Both outcomes are very germane to the debate of whether or not to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Good statistics should be used to guide policy. When you say "both outcomes you've described mean nothing to dead people", that comes off to me in the same way as "think of the children" does. Law enforcement has various means to test impairment that may not be as definitive as a breathalyzer (whose accuracy is considered debatable by some), but are still good enough to determine if a person is fit to drive. Instead of banning marijuana, how about if we instead develop more effective means of determining if a person is fit to drive? It shouldn't matter whether a person is unfit to drive because of alcohol, pot, old age or blood pressure medication, they're still unfit to drive.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sjames]

The DEA's criminal actions would, if anything, weaken the apparent results. The evidence really DOES strongly point to a reduction in prescription deaths where medical marijuana is legal.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sjames]

Given NHTSA's sloppy reasoning and screwy statistics WRT alcohol, they aren't a particularly good source of information.

An elderly man (a teetotaler) has a heart attack while driving and collides with a restaurant that serves alcohol. Fortunately, it is closed at the time so the only fatality is the driver. According to NHTSA's definitions, it is an alcohol related traffic fatality.

All of the stats you cite are such that no reasonable conclusion can be drawn. For example,

4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC.

First, that's a pretty wide swing, can't they narrow it down if they have actual data? Answer, no because they extrapolated the data from a small (possibly cherry picked) sample.

Of that 4 to 14 percent, how many were currently high? You test positive for THC long after the high is gone.

What percent of drivers not involved in an accident tested positive for THC (or would have if anyone cared to test)?

Of that 4 to 14 percent, how many were concurrently drunk?

For the 3,000 Australians, were they at fault or were they 'at fault' because police found a roach in the ash tray and so decided they must have been at fault (quite common). I hear a question being begged.

Meanwhile, none of that has a single thing to do with overdose.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I doubt the war on drugs was only targeted towards Marijuana."

Since people aren't Marijuana you would be right. The War on Drugs is a misnomer. It has always been a losing war against the US Citizens, and more specifically a subset of the US citezenry that valued morals and freedom of choice over laws designed to create a ruling class and a subjegated class. This is not to say that there are no immoral drug users of course, but the all too often successful attempt to paint drug use as immoral was never about helping people, and has always been about excercising control over them. In truth: Drugs have done some good things for US.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The War on Drugs has been a a smashing success - it's put millions of people whom the power structure wanted to imprison in prison, diverted billions of dollars to those in the power structure, and helped subsidize honest-to-God warfare in South America and Mexico- and still, too small of a subset of Americans realize this."

Just a little accuracy upgrade to your well thought out post.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Zero__Kelvin]

"There seems to be this attitude out there that pot is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up."

There seems to be this attitude out there that oxygen is harmless, and that's just not the case in my experience. In moderation, it's probably safe. But chronic use- long term use at high doses- seems to really fuck people up."

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sjames]

So, were the second group perfectly psychologically healthy before they started smoking so much? Perhaps they were the few who were on the road to going postal one day but by the grace of THC they are able to at least live peaceful lives?

I have no doubt that chronic heavy use is bad for you. I suspect but cannot prove that at least some of the people who fall into that pattern had an underlying problem in the first place that they are self-medicating with varying success.

It wouldn't be too surprising if like alcohol, some people should avoid THC for their own good.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[wwphx]

Hawaii is a classic case. They took away pot, and crack and meth entered the vacuum. Violent crime skyrocketed.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

I agree with your conclusion. However, only two of my eight family members killed by drunk drivers were minors, so think of the one-quarter children.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[sjames]

Oh sorry, I thought keeping society safe isn't part of your agenda. Got it.

Fortunately, it is part of my agenda AND I recognize that proper statistical analysis can point the way while junk statistics are better suited to hidden agendas.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[anagama]

Why is the parent post moderated flamebait?

The comment is statistically accurate if a bit understated. Lots of charts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

There are countless articles anyone on /. should be competent to find on their own, such as this:

The punishment falls disproportionately on people of color. Blacks make up 50 percent of the state and local prisoners incarcerated for drug crimes. Black kids are 10 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than white ones -- even though white kids are more likely to abuse drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

As for the "war on black people" comment, see the book "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Once a person is convicted of a felony, like for having an ounce of pot or whatever, huge swaths of civil and privacy rights are just taken away for life, finding employment becomes very hard, and they end up never being financially capable of escaping the ghetto. This is just as effective as "whites only" laws.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

Because obviously we're all here for you, mate.

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[ultranova]

Alcohol, being the most dangerous of those ready intoxicants, has the property of having a somewhat tested method of measuring whether your system is effected.

Not really. While acute alcohol intoxication is easy to test, the lingering effects are not. Hangover persists even after all ethanol has been burned up, as do the effects of lack of (restful) sleep, not to mention possible withdrawal effects. And of course depression and outright illness which result from heavy use don't exactly make you a safer driver, nor does lowered constitution due to being too hungover to practice, etc.

Re: Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[macs4all]

That wasn't a "reaction"; it was a Rebuttal. There Is an important difference.

Here is the very first hit Google returned with the search term What do pot tests measure?: From that search, the second paragraph contained the text Unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyser (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot determine an approximate degree of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality of cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.

So, that's one point I have rebutted.Do I have to even cite a source for the fact that any study ostensibly focused on impaired DRIVING that includes statistics for impaired PASSENGERS is pretty much void ab initio when proffered for that purpose?

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[Sarius64]

Short of employing violence, how do you think this is even possible? To what level of misuse does someone have to reach until you agree with removing privileges such as driving?

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[LordWabbit2]

Whoa! ALL THINGS IN MODERATION - that's going a bit overboard don't ya think?

Re:Congressional Pharmaceutical Complex

[strikethree]

... they seem scattered and their thought processes tend to run wild;...

Ugh. I hate myself for saying this: Correlation does not imply causation.

What I mean is maybe the mental issues exist regardless and may be the cause of the marijuana use.

Up is down and hot is cold...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least that seems to be US drug policy
A common painkiller will kill you and a schedule 1 dangerous drug has medical benefits and cannot kill you regardless of dosage

As far as the legal painkiller goes, Acetaminophen can destroy your liver and most NSAIDs increase your risk of stroke

Opioids are the biggest culprit tho, what with their tendency to suppress breathing and cause death with relatively small doses. Add in the tendency to cause physical addiction and long term illegal use of stolen pharmaceuticals or heroin

Are we living in crazy town, or is the will of the people finally being heard?

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[Anonymous Coward]

.... most NSAIDs increase your risk of stroke

And kidney failure. And stomach bleeding. And wicked heartburn.

I was taking Aleve according to the directions - one tablet every 12 hours - for a couple of weeks because of a sports injury. My doc checked my kidney function to see if it were alright to continue for a another week. She's stessed not to take any over the counter pain relief for extened periods and if I'm hurting that long, get my ass in to see her.

Although, I think too many pot smokers read too much into the scant studies (non-RTC) about the effects of THC on tumor growth - it does NOT cure cancer or prevent tumors. There are quite a few things smoking (anything) does to one's cardio-vascular system. If pot becomes legal in all states, I hope there are warnings on the marijana cigarettes like there are on tobacco cigarettes.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[fermion]

Prescription drugs are killing people and have been the gateway drug ever since I can remember. The overuse of perscription drugs lull people into a belief they never have to feel anything, and when they cannot afford the commercial stuff, they get stuff on the street. Common sense laws that could control the way that prescriptions drugs lead to drug abuse have been fought tooth and nail by the the Pharmcos. In places like Vermont, where easy access to drug and guns intersect, the prescription drug abuse problem has skyrocketed.

One big problem we have is of perception. When it became known Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict, because he abused prescription drugs it was like he was a victim, different from those urban people who abused street drugs. it was the same thing, and now we have all these people who think they are not drug addicts because they abuse prescriptions drugs, and then feel like victims of the insurance companies when they have to move to street drugs. We even have people smuggling drugs, like he smuggled Viagra from the Dominican Republic, and become they are prescription drugs they think they are different from those that smuggle cocaine.

Making plants illegal is just silly. Heavily regulating the refining of those plants into drugs makes sense. Tracking prescriptions so we identify those doctors and pharmacies that are providing drugs that are likely to be abused makes sense. But instead we gun people down on the streets, break into peoples home, just because they have ingested a chemical.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[Skynyrd]

Are we living in crazy town, or is the will of the people finally being heard?

We are living in crazy town.
Our representatives don't represent us any more; they obey the special interest dollar.

I don't see a positive future for the US. Either the middle class will continue to get fucked until everybody is at the poverty level (except the uber-wealthy) or there will be a civil war. Neither one will end well. We will continue to be distracted with issues like gay marriage, legal weed, NASCAR and celebrity dating (even though two of those actually matter) until one or the other happens. I am glad I have about 40 years of life left, and didn't bring kids into the world.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[budgenator]

Making plants illegal is just silly.

About a silly as a public Elementary School in a declared "Drug Free Zone" growing Poppies in their landscape.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[ColdWetDog]

Drugged up is drugged up.

LONG-term effects of marijuana

        Reduced resistance to common illnesses (colds, bronchitis, etc.)

        Suppression of the immune system

        Growth disorders

        Increase of abnormally structured cells in the body

        Reduction of male sex hormones

        Rapid destruction of lung fibers and lesions (injuries) to the brain could be permanent

        Reduced sexual capacity

        Study difficulties: reduced ability to learn and retain information

        Apathy, drowsiness, lack of motivation

        Personality and mood changes

        Inability to understand things clearly

I thought these were all side effects from reading Slashdot.

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[macs4all]

Although, I think too many pot smokers read too much into the scant studies (non-RTC) about the effects of THC on tumor growth - it does NOT cure cancer or prevent tumors.

1. Citation, please, for your "not curing cancer, and for the not preventing tumors"?

2. It may not cure cancer, and it may not prevent tumors, but there is evidence to show that marijuana smokers have cancer rates as low, and possibly lower than those who smoke nothing, including tobacco.

So, until you can show a definitive causal relationship between smoking marijuana and increased rates of cancer, you can STUFF your dire warnings based on bias and conjecture, rather than facts.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[Lehk228]

A+ on your DARE report bro.

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[Sarius64]

Peer reviewed, I assume?

Fitzgerald, K. T., Bronstein, A. C., & Newquist, K. L. (2013). Marijuana poisoning. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 28(1), 8-12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.tcam.2013.03.004

Van Hoozen, B.,E., & Cross, C. E. (1997). Marijuana. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, 15(3), 243-269. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02737700

Kozer, E. (2001-02-01). Effects of prenatal exposure to marijuana. Canadian family physician, 47, 263-264.

Coffman, K. L. (2008). The debate about marijuana usage in transplant candidates: recent medical evidence on marijuana health effects. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 13(2), April 2008, 189–195

Sidney, S., Quesenberry, Jr., C. P., Friedman, G. D., & Tekawa, I. S. (1997). Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 8(5) (Sep 1997), 722-728

Thielmann, A., & Daeninck, P. J. (2013). Medical marijuana in cancer: Harmful or harm reduction? Clinical Practice, 10(3), 371-381. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/cpr.13.15

Lopez-Quintero, C., & Neumark, Y., (2010). Effects of risk perception of marijuana use on marijuana use and intentions to use among adolescents in Bogotá, Colombia, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 109(1–3), 1 June 2010, Pages 65-72, ISSN 0376-8716, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.011. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871609004529)

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[ultranova]

I don't see a positive future for the US. Either the middle class will continue to get fucked until everybody is at the poverty level (except the uber-wealthy) or there will be a civil war.

Relax, the way things are going we seem headed for World War III long before that.

Re:Up is down and hot is cold...

[Bloke down the pub]

Correlation or causation? And if it's the latter, which way round?

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[macs4all]

Ok, you want to play dueling citations? I'll bite.

First off, only TWO of your cites even contain the word "Cancer" in the title; and of those two, one (Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence) states clearly in it's abstract that there IS NO RELATIONSHIP between Marijuana use and Cancer.

And while trying to find a non-paywalls version of the other study you cited that seemed reasonably on-point ((paraphrasing the title, because mobile slashdot ate my first attempt) "Marijuana and Cancer: Harmful or Helpful?"), I never did find that study thI could read without paying; but, along the way, I ran into this WONDERFUL study on an NIH site that I DARE you to reasonably and factually Rebut:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

From the Cancer portion of that 42-page study/report:

Cannabinoids and Cancer
Possibly the greatest harm-reducing potential afforded by cannabinoids comes from their use by cancer patients. Cannabinoids possess numerous pharmacological properties that are often beneficial to cancer patients. Many people are aware of the anti-emetic and appetite stimulating effects of cannabinoids [64]. A systemic study designed to quantify the efficacy of cannabinoids as an anti-emetic agent examined data from 30 randomized controlled studies that were published between 1975 and 1997 and included 1366 patients who were administered non-smoked cannabis [65]. For patients requiring a medium level of control, cannabinoids were the preferred treatment (between 38% and 90%). This preference was lost for patients requiring a low or a high level of control. Sedation and euphoria were noted as beneficial side effects, whereas dizziness, dysphoria, hallucinations, and arterial hypotension were identified as harmful side effects.

The cancer cell killing [66] and pain relieving properties of cannabinoids are less well known to the general public. Cannabinoids may prove to be useful chemotherapeutic agents [67]. Numerous cancer types are killed in cell cultures and in animals by cannabinoids. For example, cannabinoids kill the cancer cells of various lymphoblastic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma [68], skin cancer [69], glioma [70], breast and prostate cancer [71], pheochromocytoma [72], thyroid cancer [73], and colorectal cancer[74]. Since 2002 THC has been used in a clinical trial in Spain for the treatment of glioma [75]. However, not all cancers are the same, and cannabinoid-induced biochemical modifications, while effective in killing the cells of some cancers, as indicated above, can have the opposite effect on the cells of other types of cancer. For example, recent work has shown that the synthetic cannabinoid, methanandamide, can promote the growth of lung cancer cells by a receptor independent pathway that involves the up-regulation of COX2 [76]. Although much has been learned about the therapeutic value of cannabinoid agonists and antagonists in different situations, scientific understanding of how to appropriately modulate the endocannabinoid pathways remains preliminary, with much remaining to be learned.

The rest of the report is equally enlightening (and enlightened), and I double-dog dare you to read it objectively and not come to the conclusion that you've been misled by all the fervent anti-Marijuana propaganda.

But, I feel I may be giving you too much credit. Feel free to prove that my opinion of you is incorrect, and that you can let facts "in", at least once in awhile, even when it means you have to reconsider something you have simply "decided" is true.

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[Sarius64]

I've not decided anything. However, I find it interesting that you're couching this discussion as though I'm some enemy. Reading your own quotes above, it appears the same relevant risks are there for cancer with marijuana. I simply pointed this fact out. I'm sure levels of cyanide are acceptable too in a diet. You choose the amount that you can take, fine.

Really, double-dog dare? Hilarious.

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[macs4all]

Ok. Perhaps you will find this report a little more "targeted".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Re: Up is down and hot is cold...

[Sarius64]

Seriously, you're a moron.

Great - but how many choking deaths?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many choking deaths from people getting the munchies?

Re:Great - but how many choking deaths?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably less than the number of choking deaths from people puking in their sleep after they take pills with booze.

Re:Great - but how many choking deaths?

[PPH]

You can't really dust for vomit.

Painkillers, HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

First mistake, opoids are not painkillers, they're brain killers. They do not affect the pain, they merely mess you up so bad you no longer care if anything hurts.
I'm in constant pain, 24/7, and tried the opoid "painkillers". They also killed my life, I was so brain dead I could accomplish only the bare minimum hygienic tasks.
I got off the opoids (a significant achievement) and started smoking pot to deal with the pain. Sure, it hurts more now, but the pot allows me to deal with it.

And since I live in a State that has not even legalized medical pot due to all the damn liars about the so called "dangers" I'm an Anonymous Coward.
 

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[apraetor]

Opiates and opioids work on several subtypes of opioid receptors, which are present in locations besides the brain. The mu-opioid receptions in the brain are responsible for the sense of euphoria the drugs produce, but those receptors, along with kappa- and delta- variants, modulate nociception (pain sense). If opioids didn't actually work directly on pain then intrathecal morphine wouldn't work as well as it does.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[SternisheFan]

Heroin is what all opiate based pain medication is based on. It's all opiates, whether it's a $10 bag of heroin bought on the street, melted on a spoon and transferred to a needle to be injected directly into one's bloodstream, or the painkiller your doctor prescribed. It all has the same effect on the brain. If you are taking a pain killer, you basically are a heroin user. It's all opiates.

20+ years ago, a friend of mine was dieing from stomach cancer. Hospice, home to die. Doctor's gave him 2 months to live, he lasted seven. He had an I.V. drip hooked up to him in his bedroom, a metering device programmed by the R.N. to administer regulated doses of morphine, with a large red button that we could press to give him an extra dose of morphine. The man had bedsores that were excruciating for him to deal with, on top of the stomach cancer pain.

This was in 1992. There was no such thing then as medical marijuana. Whenever that man wanted to smoke pot, we made sure it was there for him, and yes, it eased his pain. There was never a need for discussion of whether it was legal. He needed it, he got it. And pot wasn't as powerful then as todays strains are.

To deny anyone in legitimate legal pain from having access to medical marijuana is a crime against humanity. No politician should have the right to 'decree' that people in pain should be denied easement of their pain, in my opinion.

Legalization of marijuana comes with many caveats. I do not want my bus/cab/train/plane drivers/pilots using marijuana, the THC content of todays marijuana are much stronger than they were back in the 1960's. Someone ingesting THC can 'fade out' while driving, or else we will see more of these type of videos....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

To be made broadly legal will involve a learning curve of laws that will need to be enacted. If your job involves transporting people, pot (like alcohol), needs to be used responsibly, and never 'on the job', especially since today's pot potency is much higher than what it was from days past.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Rinikusu]

Anecdotally, when I was on Morphine, the pain was still there. It was buried in my brain, but if I looked for it, I found it. Morphine merely allowed me to shunt it off somewhere else. Same with whatever pain meds they gave me post-surgery. I didn't even know I was on pain meds until they started to wear off (about every 12 hours, on the dot). I knew I still had pain deep down, but I just didn't care about it. However, after about 12 hours, I couldnt' ignore it and had to retake.

Now, I'm in constant pain (seriously, dont' ever get run over by a car on a bicycle, it will fuck you up). I've managed to deal with it, medication-free for the past 7-8 years, but occasionally I do eat an edible (once a month or so) when it's just been a physically stressful day and I need something to let me put it out of mind and relax. Cannabis does the trick good enough with no worries of addiction (which runs in my family pretty hardcore).

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[SternisheFan]

Keep on doing what you need to do, Rinikusu. The brain does tend to 'max out' on THC, studies show. Over months of use, the brain will only allow itself to get 'so high', and no more. A person needs to stop using to allow the brain to return close to 'normal. Elsewise, it will max out on a person's ability to fully feel it's effects. Like any drug, it has it's limits.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another substance, mitragyna speciosa, the kratom tree, has recently come into the FDA's and DEA's sights as being likewise as "deadly" as cannabis and it has, as of now, only come under a US importation ban. It is a Mu and Delta opioid agonist that has been used for centuries by native peoples in SE Asia and Papua New Guinea and has recently shown to be very useful as a safer alternative to opioids as well as lessening anxiety disorders that would otherwise fall under the management of benzodiazepines. It's becoming more and more obvious (to normal people) that our byzantine federal drug system is becoming more a protection racket for the pharmaceutical companies.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[drinkypoo]

the THC content of todays marijuana are much stronger than they were back in the 1960's.

We keep hearing this, but there's no evidence to support it. Maybe it's better than you could get in the 1960s, but humans have been cultivating this plant specifically for high THC production for literally thousands of years.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[WilyCoder]

"a car on a bicycle"

that must have been a big bike to support a car!

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Reziac]

I assume the medical pot folks have a clue, and they say it tests quite a lot stronger than in the past -- more than six times stronger on average:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon...
========
The average potency of all marijuana in the US, according to the UMPMC's Dec. 2008 â" Mar. 2009 quarterly report, was 8.52% (5.62% domestic and 9.57% nondomestic).

The highest tested sample had 22.04% THC (domestic) and 27.30% THC (nondomestic). The highest tested sample ever tested between 1975 and 2009 had 33.12% THC (domestic) and 37.20% THC (nondomestic).

For comparison, the national average of marijuana's THC content in 1978 was 1.37%, in 1988 it was 3.59%, in 1998 4.43%, and in 2008 8.49%.
======

They also point out that today's joints are typically smaller, so the total dosage may be about the same, or at least not much higher. However, that also means it may be harder for a novice to determine his limits -- kinda like being handed a bottle of vodka for your first drink.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Fjandr]

It all has the same effect on the brain.

While most opiates generally have the same effects, different opiates have different levels of those effects. Ask anyone who has taken fentanyl and then needed to stop taking it whether it has the same effects as hydrocodone.

Different opiates are metabolized in different ways, and produce different quantities of various metabolites. Some even have different routes based on the user's health. Oxycodone, for example, has a higher k-opioid receptor response in diabetics, while in non-diabetics the antinociceptive effects are achieved through u-opioid receptors.

Additionally, the "brain effects" wear off for most long-term users when used to treat pain.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Fjandr]

News flash: Different people react differently to some things. Just because opiates left you in a fog doesn't mean they are useless for everyone. For example, I take enough opiates daily to kill a horse. I exhibit no mental side effects. If I don't tell someone I use opiates for pain control, they'd have no reason to suspect I did.

Your anecdote is a perfect example of why anecdotes are unreliable for any situation other than that of the person from whom they come. I'm the opposite of you. Opiates control my pain without mental side effects. Marijuana, on the other hand, has no effect on me. I can consume enough to get a half-dozen people high as a kite without any effect on me whatsoever. Honestly, I wish that weren't true, because opiates don't control gastrointestinal pain in me. I would be ecstatic if marijuana could control that particular pain, but it doesn't.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[drinkypoo]

I assume the medical pot folks have a clue, and they say it tests quite a lot stronger than in the past -- more than six times stronger on average:

So I followed the links down and this is based solely on seized material. There's a zillion ways that could be improperly representative, especially since the volume has gone up so sharply. The figures became more useful year-on-year, and appear to become most reliable once you have hit around a couple thousand seizures. That is, if you look at the minimal available data with a critical eye, and not simply inclined to accept it.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Reziac]

You can only judge by the samples you've got. I suspect they're pretty durn representative, and they seem to be reasonably consistent.

But if selective breeding works for other plants, why not for pot? Considering the variation known in marijuana, and that anyone can do a "smoke test" of their own crop, how difficult could it be to select toward higher THC content? Why wouldn't they, when it can be done rapidly and easily, and best of all increases your profits?

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[drinkypoo]

You can only judge by the samples you've got.

Right. And if you wanted reliable statistics, you'd go out and purchase samples all over the country, then weigh them based on population.

and they seem to be reasonably consistent.

Not really. The figures jump up and down quite a bit. The scale is something like 1-25 and we're seeing variations of 2 and 3 year-on-year, that's a massive delta and easily ascribed to inaccuracy.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[david_thornley]

Of course people can breed for high THC. That's hardly new technology (although we can do a lot more genetic engineering nowadays). I'd think people have been breeding for high THC for centuries now.

In other words, the possibility of selective breeding has nothing to do with whether THC content has gone up over the decades.

Re:Painkillers, HA!

[Reziac]

Selective breeding tends to relate to marketability. Did marijuana have much market value back before it was outlawed? Probably not, since it was just a common weed available to anyone who cared to pick it, and back in the day, opium was still legal too.

I would hazard that the pressure toward higher THC has come not only from buyers (after all a person could just consume more of the weaker stuff) but also from law enforcement -- since the larger the package, the more likely it is to be observed.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The pain is still there.

[nospam007]

We just don't give a shit.

Re:The pain is still there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana suppresses psychological pain as well. May bite into anti-depressant sales. No way pharmacoms are going to let this happen easily.

Re:States practicing Sharia law...

[MightyMartian]

AIDS is found in Islamic states, and just ask the 1400 girls radioed over 16 years in Rotherham, England by 8000 Pakistani and Kashmiri men how Sharia keeps children safe.

But lower pharma profits...

[bazmail]

Its business and lobbying. As soon as the meidical marijuana industry puts money into lobbying things will get a lot better for patients.

On the other hand...

[thebeastofbaystreet]

...deaths from pizza overdose are through the roof. Back on the positive side though, delivery companies are doing a roaring trade and pretty much single-handedly saving the economy.

ruthless criminal

[whathappenedtomonday]

warlords in South America? Don't forget the pharmaceutical industry, and all those other industries that benefit from prohibiting a natural competitor that needs little cultivation because it basically grows like ... well, weed.

Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[SuperKendall]

If pot becomes legal in all states, I hope there are warnings on the marijana cigarettes like there are on tobacco cigarettes.

Is that as likely to cause cancer? It does seem like smoking anything is a bad idea, but perhaps tobacco has something that makes it more likely to develop issues...

However there's also another way to get MJ into your system, edibles. If you were using it for medical purposes a medicinal brownie seems like a more appealing application than does smoking...

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijana isn't able to burn as effective as tobacco. So, at least in the Netherlands, you roll a marijana together with tobacco into a cigarette.
tobacco is extra nasty and you could vaporise marijana, however marijana still include tar. Maybe you could scrape of the crystals and disolve it into a liquid and vaporise that.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[sumdumass]

Smoking pot destroys quite a bit of the supposed good stuff in it. Its really a poor delivery system outside of getting high.

As far as causing cancer, it is a surprisingly low number of smokers who get cancer from smoking. I know it is presented as if you even look at a cigarette, you will get cancer and die, but less than 10% of life long smokers will get cancer. But of people who have cancer, something like 87% of the lung cancer deaths are from smoking and about 30% of all cancer deaths are from smoking. Further, smoking increases your risks of cancer about 23 times that of non smokers so there is a strong tie in with cancer. This is how the tobacco companies were able to refute connections to smoking and cancer for so long and probably why they weren't just shut down completely after losing court battle after court battle.

Now when comparing smoking pot with tobacco, you have to understand that the combustion process changes a lot of the chemicals within the substances, creates new ones by reactions, and it is thought that these changes may modify your risks of cancers and other diseases. Similarly, fire fighters seem to have higher risks of cancers and it is thought because of exposure to smoke and supposedly safe chemicals for fire retardants when burned.

I just wouldn't trust anyone who says it is safe to smoke pot. Maybe it might be less dangerous, but that would mean it would still be dangerous.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[sound vision]

I'm in the US and have been a daily potsmoker for the last 8 years (barring a few months break). I have never seen tobacco mixed into a joint, not once... it seems to be a European thing. Now, there is the practice of using cigar wraps to roll a "blunt", and sometimes those cigar wraps are made from tobacco pulp, so that could be seen as mixing tobacco with marijuana. I prefer not to smoke blunts, either.

Scraping the crystals (technically trichromes) off cannabis is how hashish is made. Dissolving it into a solvent, then evaporating the solvent, gives liquid hash oil (also called honey oil, dabs, wax). Dabs are becoming more prevalent within the past few years as they are theoretically healthier, having a better ratio of plant material to THC. A recent issue of High Times featured a method of extracting hash oil using drinking-grade ethanol, instead of butane which was the formerly used process. Not only is it less likely to explode, it also placates people who are arbitrarily afraid of "chemicals", so I see dabs gaining massive popularity within the next few years.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[TubeSteak]

This is how the tobacco companies were able to refute connections to smoking and cancer for so long and probably why they weren't just shut down completely after losing court battle after court battle.

No. Just no.
The tobacco companies kept the law off them by running a FUD campaign of epic proportions.

They created and paid for think tanks to do research and write papers that refuted scientific fact.
They had an impressive lobbying organization that aggressively lobbied in Washington.
Books have been written about it based on everything that came out in court.

Once the Master Settlement Agreement was made, the tobacco lobbying and FUD money dried up.
The portions of the tobacco FUD machine that weren't dissolved, looked for other sources of income.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out who they're shilling for now.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[Yakasha]

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out who they're shilling for now.

Considering the revolving door in D.C. + marijuana STILL being schedule I... I'm going to guess... The Feds.

Am I right?

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 70's and 80's Europeans used tobacco to roll with hashish, which was much more widely available that bud

I met some Australians in the 80's who were stunned that all commercial pot in America was bud (they called it head) and that they were used to getting leaves and buds in the same bag

I have smoked in America (SW) for the past 40 years and have never added tobacco to pot in a joint. The recent trend to wrapping pot in a tobacco skin (often flavored) leaves me cold and I am much more interested in reduced-harm methods like water pipes or vaporizers

fyi, I work in high tech, am very effective and certainly not unusual, if you really knew who all smoked pot you would realize that a great percentage of our national production is enabled by them

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[afxgrin]

Fuck man we've been dabbing now for a few years. I just toss that extract in my e-cig and vape everywhere and anywhere. Lol mixing pot with tobacco.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[fustakrakich]

Pot is an irritant. So far all long term effects have proven nil. A few months after stopping, it's like you never smoked at all. Maybe natural tobacco isn't so bad either, but cigarettes are so full of nasty shit...

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[DNS-and-BIND]

Tobacco mixed in is definitely a European thing. So much so, that they can't imagine smoking a "pure" joint. It's a real bummer to have someone hand you a jay, and cough your lungs out because some jerkwad mixed in half a Marlboro. I got started smoking cigarettes that way. Thanks, jerks.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[Sarius64]

citation?

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[Lehk228]

IIRC "clean coal" was one of their highly polished turds

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[TarPitt]

this search might come up with some excellent examples: http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=global+warming

For a more detailed look at this, try http://slashdot.org/story/06/0...

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[sumdumass]

Citation for what? Fewer than 10% of life long smokers will get cancer in their life time. That is not even counting those who started and stopped at some point in their life.

Their life time will be shorter and there are a list of other ailments associated with smoking but smokers and cancer is not a 100% given. On the other hand, of certain cancers, a high number of people with them are smokers, are thought to have it because of smokers, and of the deaths associated with them, smokers seem to be extremely high compared to non-smokers.

Re:Wouldn't edibles have the same effect

[sound vision]

This is in Houston. In the party-type situation where you need to roll up a bulk amount of weed in a fashion that it burns slower, blunts are used. The upside to that is it becomes "two or three blunts", not "five or ten joints".

I disagree

[msobkow]

...marijuana doesn't replace the pain relief of opiates.

No, for many people it's more effective than opiates. I know literally dozens of medical cannabis users who have given up opiate pain killers completely and replaced them with medical cannabis. But it's important to experiment with different strains and find what works for you; all cannabis is not created equal.

Personally, I use Kush and Afghanistan strains and crosses for migraines. Over the years I've tried literally hundreds of strains, and looked into their breeding history, and came to the conclusion that it was Kush and Afghanistan strains that are the most effective for my migraines.

Where an opiate pain killer will dull the pain of a migraine, the proper strain will completely eliminate all migraine symptoms for me within 5-10 minutes of consuming a half gram dose. Triptans, on the other hand, only work half the time and take half an hour to have any effect, if any. Opiates only dull pain and actually make the nausea of a migraine worse because they upset my stomach. Add in the addictive nature of opiates, and I think you can understand why I'd much rather use medical cannabis than prescription opiates for what ails me.

Re:I disagree

[budgenator]

I was a burn patient and was prescribed enough morphine to depress my breathing, but that didn't touch my headache. The Nurses looked at me like I was crazy when I asked for tylenol for my headache, but it clobbered the headache.

Re:I disagree

[apraetor]

I didn't have extensive burns, just the back of my left hand and wrist, from boiling oil, but I noticed the same thing. Oxycodone (the Percocet variety) did a great job of letting me ignore my hand -- when it wasn't itching like crazy -- but it didn't work for my headaches either. Marijuana definitely worked for both, although I think the effect is something to do with dissociation, at least for me. Instead of the pain being an all-consuming sensation it becomes.. well I'm not sure of the words. After marijuana I can put the pain aside; it's still there, but I become able to ignore it by making an effort.

Re:I disagree

[Frosty Piss]

I literally read your anicdotal comments literally once, and must say I literally agree with your experiences. Literally.

Re:I disagree

[msobkow]

Oh my fucking God! Shoot him! He made a fucking TYPO!

Asshat.

Re:I disagree

[msobkow]

You're correct. It's not a typo. (I thought maybe it was supposed to be spelled with one "l".)

It is the correct use of the term to emphasize the "dozens" in my statement:

Merriam-Webster definition

Re:I disagree

[msobkow]

But I'm not surprised that people from the land of Ebonics would take issue with the correct use of the English language. :P

Re:I disagree

[msobkow]

Oh yes, being in pain, throwing up, and not being able to see due to auras is just a "little headache."

So you can kiss my haemorrhoidic ass.

Re:I disagree

[ultranova]

After marijuana I can put the pain aside; it's still there, but I become able to ignore it by making an effort.

Tha'ts a mild psychedelic effect. It lets you see your mind as a set of subsystems rather than a whole. Actual hallucinogens like LSD have similar but far stronger effect, which is why they're potentially very useful in treating things like addictions - but of course that's impossible thanks to the War on Drugs, ironically enough.

It's also almost certainly the real reason for WoD: an outbreak of self-awareness could shatter the chains of delusion which keep people in their place beneath the booths of the Powers That Be. What would happen to our society and it's "elite" if people stopped fighting each other to become millionaires and instead banded together to ensure a decent standard of living for all?

Re:I disagree

[budgenator]

Mine was from burning rosin on the back of my right hand, they kept asking me about the pain which was well controlled but my take everything too literal mind never thought to complain about the itching. I was being seen in a teaching Hospital, Detroit Recieving, a MD from another Hospital casualy said "Oh by the way you do know that benedryl stops the itching, don't you?" after 6 weeks the itchy gritty torment was gone with 1 benedryl!

Re:I disagree

[apraetor]

Like I said, the ER doc gave me percocet when I was burned; went to see my GP a couple of days later for a follow-up and he switched me to Tylenol #3 (Tylenol+codeine, if you don't know). Codeine causes more itching than oxy/hydocodone -- a LOT more, in my experience. Too much for Benadryl to prevent, so it was maddening. When I did some googling and found out codeine is supposed to be avoided in burn patients because reasons I was seriously pissed.. that's the side-effect people don't mention. Opiates make you euphoric, and also sharpens your temper to a knife-edge.

Re:I disagree

[budgenator]

My itching was more from hystamine spilling out due to the infamation, the only time there was any pain was when air was hitting the raw skin durring dressing changes; like the itchy, gritty feeling from a sunburn, only lasting for a couple months.

Incorrect headline, summary

[wmansir]

This study has been misreported nearly everywhere. The study didn't find states with legalized medical marijuana had fewer deaths than non-legal states. Legalized states continually had more deaths per capita, and both groups had dramatic increased in opiate OD deaths over the period covered by the study. The researchers found OD death rates in legalized states increased ~25% less than expected.

I don't have access to the full study, but this chart included in this Washington Post article shows both groups OD death rate increase dramatically over time. It's interesting to note the change from 2009-2010, which significantly narrowed the gap between the groups. Prior to that year both groups seemed to be on similar trend lines. That said, groups moved from the illegal to legalized group over the course of the study and I'm not sure if or how the chart was adjusted for those changes.

Re:Incorrect headline, summary

[wmansir]

I meant to say states moved from the illegal to legalized group.

Re:Incorrect headline, summary

[fustakrakich]

So, is it not just as correct to say there was a 25% difference between the two groups?

Re:Incorrect headline, summary

[tomhath]

There wasn't a 25% difference in death rates. There was a 25% difference in the increase of the death rate due to drug overdose. It's also not clear if the deaths caused by opiate overdose were replaced by something else (suicide is pretty common among people in the final stages of a terribly painful disease like cancer).

Reason for replacing opiates - functionality

[reve_etrange]

I think a lot of people replace opiates with marijuana despite inferior pain relief because it's a helluva lot easier to function in a more-or-less normal way on pot than, say, percocet or whatever.

Re:Reason for replacing opiates - functionality

[PPH]

function in a more-or-less normal way

Maybe, maybe not. But it is accepted that opiates are more lethal than marijuana. And if some peopleare satisfied with the replacement, that's a step in the right direction from the point of view of death rates.

It appears that the biggest anti-marijuana movement is made up of the drug companies that stand to loose opiate sales to m.j.

Re:Reason for replacing opiates - functionality

[Fjandr]

Depends on the person. I take enough opiates daily to kill most people who are opiate-naive. I was foggy for about the first 3 months of using them for pain, and then the mental effects disappeared. Only those I tell have any idea that I take large quantities of opiates to treat chronic pain from surgical adhesions.

For others, the mental effects never go away. Being able to function normally on opiates depends largely on the individual.

Re:Reason for replacing opiates - functionality

[reve_etrange]

Makes sense. I made my parent comment based on the experiences of people I know, who have specifically turned down painkillers in favor of self-medication with marijuana. For most of them, I don't think they ever got far enough to find out if habituation would change their choice.

Preferential extraction of heavy metals

[apraetor]

Tobacco plants pull some very nasty minerals out of soil, such as Strontium-90 and Cadmium. There have been studies done to see whether that effect can be exploited as a means of remediation for contaminated soil. Regardless of those results, the plants themselves are high in heavy metals; the kind of stuff that is no good in your lungs.

Re:Preferential extraction of heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

Tobacco plants pull some very nasty minerals out of soil, such as Strontium-90 and Cadmium. There have been studies done to see whether that effect can be exploited as a means of remediation for contaminated soil.

Here are your search terms: "Oyster Mushrooms" "Fungi Perfecti" "Paul Stamets"

Long story short, not only can you remediate soil by growing common fungi but you can also reduce uptake of radioactives by plants via fungal soil inoculation.

No

[kipling]

I don't think so. The JAMA article http://archinte.jamanetwork.co... does look at longitudinal effects but the 25% figure comes from comparing states with and without. From the abstract:
States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate (95% CI, 37.5% to 9.5%; P=.003) compared with states without medical cannabis laws.
The common way to statistically analyse the effect of one variable is to model as many variables as the data allows and run a regression to isolate the effect of the target variable.
It may be that there are other problems with the study (e.g. correlations between the variables assumed to be independent) but this isn't one of them.

Re:No

[wmansir]

When looking for the WaPo article I linked to I noticed they had added a correction since I first read it:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the prescription drug overdose death rates. In aggregate, states with medical marijuana laws had higher death rates than those without, though the authors’ statistical analysis did find that the laws were in fact associated with overall decreases in overdose deaths.

Which means that the idea that legalized states had lower death rates is not true.

Also, the author of the study wrote a piece for the NY Times in which he said:

Using death certificates compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that the rate of prescription painkiller overdose deaths increased in all states from 1999 to 2010. But we also found that implementation of a medical marijuana law was associated with a 25 percent lower yearly rate of opioid painkiller overdose deaths, on average. In absolute terms, we estimated that states with a medical marijuana law had a total of about 1,700 fewer opioid painkiller overdose deaths in 2010 than would be expected based on trends before the laws were passed.

Since the author states that all states had increases in OD death rates, the summary's claim that legalization led to "a dramatic reduction in overdose fatalities" is also not true. The "reduction" in OD deaths was due to the difference between the statistically expected death rate in legalized states using the non-legalized state death rate trends compared to the observed death rate. In other words, and being very rough with the math, the non-legalized states had their OD death rates increase 4x, but the legalized states only had a 3x increase, therefore the legalized group had 25% fewer deaths than would be expected if they were following the non-legalized trend.

"Drug Free Zone"

[jopsen]

...public Elementary School in a declared "Drug Free Zone"...

Of-topic, I've never understood that declaration... it seems to imply that drugs are allowed everywhere else. Which by my understanding isn't the case.
Oh, well... Americans :)

Re:"Drug Free Zone"

[Anonymous Coward]

There are laws that increase the penalty if they are within a certain distance of a school, hence the designation 'drug free zone', because we are willing to punish people in a more extreme manner if is is 'for the children'

One study that I read demonstrated that most of new york city was in a 'drug free zone' because of the density of construction, resulting in all offenders getting increased sentences

Re:NOT NEWS FOR NERDS

[ganjadude]

A large portion of the tech community smokes pot, something like this belongs here, not every little story on pot but a story this big for sure

For those that don't smoke...

[Charliemopps]

For those that don't smoke...

It relieves pain not because it reduces the pain... but because it allows you to more easily focus on something else. If you're watching a movie for example, it's very easy to get lost in the movie and forget entirely about your bad back, or whatever. It's been used in mediation and religious ceremonies for thousands of years for that very reason.

Along those same lines, if you were abusing Oxy, it would likely help you forget you lost your buzz and make it less likely you'd go for your next hit. I'm not sure on that though, I don't do real drugs.

Anti-opiate forces actually "pro pain"?

[swb]

There's times I think that the "anti opiate" forces would be against anything that made pain sufferers feel better. It's like there's some kind of morality subtext that's really "pro pain" and opposed to feeling better (unless of course it was due to praying to Jesus).

Re:Anti-opiate forces actually "pro pain"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's barely scraped the surface of these freaks. Have another bullet point: They're the ones who expect you to die slowly and painfully at the end of your life (God forbid you skip out on it. God forbid you ask them to help pay for all the tubes and shit.) Your pain brings them closer to their god.

Re:Anti-opiate forces actually "pro pain"?

[tchapin]

There's a lot of evidence that opiates aren't useful for treating non-cancer, non-end-of-life pain. For most regular stuff, people just get addicted and a burden on society. Most doctors are compensated on patient satisfaction, not outcomes or efficient use of healthcare resources. Patients are more satisfied when they get the opiates that they ask for, at least in terms of rating their doctors, even if they are long-term worse off for it..

Re:Anti-opiate forces actually "pro pain"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's like there's some kind of morality subtext that's really "pro pain" and opposed to feeling better

Yes, that's exactly right - Puritanism is a terribly destructive mindframe and thoroughly-ingrained in American culture.

Three things:
1) there a slight chance that these patients could have some fun or pleasure on these drugs. That's reason enough to put a foot down on society.
2) suffering is a virtue. God will lessen the suffering of those who are themselves virtuous, but for the same reason people whip and crucify themselves "for God", those suffering horribly from disease should not be brought from that blessing.
3) people with these afflictions may deserve them.

and those who profit handsomely from such ugly undercurrents in society are all too happy to exploit them for wealth and power.

c.f. A Renegade History of the United States for more on this. The author was fired from a university professorship for publishing such "radical" views on the failures of Puritanism.

Re:Anti-opiate forces actually "pro pain"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're against addiction, and they're against recreational drug use. Agree or disagree, why not take them at their word?

Because the evidence is all to the contrary.

Portugal ran the biggest experiment - 8 million people - and upon legalization, their drug use fell in half. The UK experienced the same thing in the reverse direction upon criminalization of e.g. heroin. The result is consistent with rational views of human incentives as well, so no logical surprises.

People who are pro- drug criminalization are for increased addiction rates. That's what reason predicts and that's what the empirical results are.

Whether or not these people are rational is immaterial to the consequences of their actions. We shall not give them a "pass" on "good intentions" if they lead us down the Road to Hell. The JAMA research suggests they're responsible for a minimum of one 9/11-scale effect every year.

Re:NOT NEWS FOR NERDS

[SternisheFan]

Submissions get voted on, it has nothing to do with Slashdot's editors. Their job is to post submissions while editing them so that any mistakes in the submission are corrected. That is why online/print newspapers have editors.

Re:Neuropathic pain

[dcollins117]

So for a lot of cases it can actually replace opiates, and smoking is a faster way for it to get into your bloodstream than everything except IV injections.

Clearly we need to fast-track the development of IV marijuana. I'll volunteer for any clinical trials.

On a more serious note, I was treated for a while by a rheumatologist that had done a lot of research on pain-killers derived from marijuana. To my knowledge, there aren't any on the market currently, but the research is being done. Finally.

Re:Wow! That's a huge breakthrough!

[dcollins117]

Listen, we all know what the pro-pot movement is about. It's not medical. Medical usage is being used like a crowbar to pry open the gate on the path to legalization, but we all know the real reason people are behind it.

Yes, we all know what's going on. "Medical usage is being used like a crowbar" because that's the only thing that has worked so far. It also has the added benefit of being a factual and legitimate use that people can understand. No one who has experienced pain (everyone has at some point) will question why someone else does not want to be in pain.

I don't happen to have a problem with being a bit disingenuous if that's what it takes. I personally want to see recreational marijuana use legalized in every state.

Re:Wow! That's a huge breakthrough!

[fustakrakich]

Regardless of the reasons one way or the other, nobody has the right to prohibit its possession and use.

Shit. It's an adverb

[msobkow]

I hate being proven wrong.

The correct phrasing would have been "I literally know dozens", because "know" is the modified verb and "dozens" is not a verb.

Curse you both for being right! :D

News for NERDS.

[kuzb]

Jesus christ slashdot, get your shit together.

In other news ...

[YoungManKlaus]

countries with stricter gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

ridiculous comparison

[markdavis]

>"Many drugs with abuse potential such as nicotine and opiates, as well as marijuana, pump up the brain's dopamine levels, which can induce feelings of euphoria."

Exactly how does one "abuse" nicotine? What ridiculous grasping to put nicotine into the same sentence as opiates and marijuana when it comes to getting "high". It is also never used for pain killing. You might as well have included caffeine and sugar in the list. It blows the credibility of the article and makes it seem totally desperate.

Re:ridiculous comparison

[markdavis]

Nicotine probably causes less harm to the human body than caffeine or sugar. Perhaps you are thinking about something else?

Re:ridiculous comparison

[Fjandr]

While ingesting a large quantity of nicotine can be fatal, the major problems caused by smoking are the result of chemicals other than nicotine. Nicotine is just the one that makes people come back for more.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:private decision

[Sarius64]

Drunk drivers say the same thing up till the point where they murder someone with an automobile. Then they whine that no one understands them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Neuropathic pain

[Reziac]

Being able to prescribe a set dosage in a pill one gets from the pharmacy would do a lot to dispel the perception of OMG DRUGS.

(I don't use, but I'm all for legalization if only to kill the 'war on drugs'.)

Re:private decision

[Sarius64]

and you're an AC. Somehow I'm not worried about your opinion you narcissistic waste of electrons.