Mary Jane (Hashish, Weed, Reefer, Chronic, Ganja...) not...

[makattak]

....as harmless as its advocates claim. (Shocker, right?)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/01/new-york-times-journalist-alex-berenson-tell-your-children-marijuana-crime-mental-illness-1/

I thought this interesting as MOTHER JONES is reporting on this, likely to the consternation of its readers.

Research is coming out (as reported in the book Tell Your Children)  that THC use is strongly correlated with increased psychosis- paranoia, schizophrenia, etc....- and legalized marijuana is with increased violent crime.



Way to harsh the mellow, dudes.

[brimic]

Anecdote (note, not singular for data): A kid I grew up with was really bright, straight A student, star athelete... When he was a Junior in HS, started using pot, then using quite a bit of pot. He flunked out of school and ended up being institutionalized. 30 years alter, he has has his life somewhat together, be he's not altogther there.

[Angel Eyes]

Never thought I'd see makattak citing Mother Jones as a source.    

Does this mean that Reefer Madness had it right after all?

[makattak]

Never thought I'd see makattak citing Mother Jones as a source.    

I thought it would carry more weight as it is an admission against interest. 

[fifth_column]

The article brings up some good points. I'm a legalization advocate. I don't think marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol and is probably much less dangerous. It's good to have empirical evidence being gathered and analyzed though.  Prohibition severely limits research and causes potency to increase. 

The article is referring to "heavy users."  I haven't seen any evidence showing a link between casual use and mental health issues.  I think it's the same for alcohol; having a glass of wine with dinner and a nightcap before going to bed doesn't make one an alcoholic or cause any significant negative physical or mental health issues.  Neither does having a drag on a joint at those same times.  Moderation in all things, and all that.  In fact, moderate alcohol use can be considered therapeutic; it's relaxing and is often done while socializing. In a legal state the same could be said for marijuana.

The article mentions the potency issue: "But the marijuana sold today is not what we smoked, which at 1 percent to 2 percent THC was the equivalent of smoking oregano. Today’s weed is insanely more potent, as are products like “wax” and “shatter”—forms of butane hash oil designed to be vaped or dabbed that come pretty close to 100 percent THC."

Those hard-core users tend towards "dabs" and the really high-potency stuff, just like heavy drinkers tend towards high-potency distilled alcohol.

This, I think is a particularly important point:  "A nice wine can complement a good meal. But in a different context, “alcohol can cause bar fights. It can cause drunken driving. It can cause domestic violence. It causes terrible violence,” he says. “Yet we’re able to sort of keep those two ideas in our head: that there’s one kind of alcohol consumption that can just put [people] to sleep, and there’s another kind that can cause violence. With marijuana, those two things are also true, but we’ve sort of forgotten the second thing exists.”

The vast majority of marijuana users have no issues with using it responsibly, just like the majority of alcohol users.  And in my experience, it is much easier to become significantly impaired (to the point of being a danger to oneself) with alcohol than with marijuana. 

[Fly320s]

Anyone here smoke pot?  I don't and I can't because of my job, but even if I could I wouldn't do it.

When you smoke pot do you always get high?  Is that the intention?  I can have alcohol without getting high (drunk) and I do like the taste of many different drinks, but I wonder if pot smokers like the taste of the pot smoke. 

[Andiron]

Anyone here smoke pot?  I don't and I can't because of my job, but even if I could I wouldn't do it.

When you smoke pot do you always get high?  Is that the intention?  I can have alcohol without getting high (drunk) and I do like the taste of many different drinks, but I wonder if pot smokers like the taste of the pot smoke. 

Not I. 

And that *expletive deleted*it stinks,  I don't get the appeal.

[MillCreek]

Here in Washington, the land of legal marijuana, vaping and edibles are very popular.  More so than actual smoking.  I think it is because of the health implications of smoking.

[MikeB]

Anyone here smoke pot?  I don't and I can't because of my job, but even if I could I wouldn't do it.

When you smoke pot do you always get high?  Is that the intention?  I can have alcohol without getting high (drunk) and I do like the taste of many different drinks, but I wonder if pot smokers like the taste of the pot smoke. 

I can’t anymore due to job and laws. When I was younger and didn’t care so much I did. You are starting with a fallacy though. Even one drink does affect someone no matter who you are. I’m not buying into the MADD thing here, but it does to an extent. Just as smoking a small amount of weed affects someone. Obviously more affects people more. Yes different varieties taste different. Generally I’d say the goal is to get mellow or high. Not really any different from a drink relaxing you. There is also the whole socializing aspect have a couple beers relax and talk *expletive deleted*it or take a couple tokes relax and talk *expletive deleted*it.

As for the study, it sounds like BS. Like those diet soda cause cancer studies, yeah when you drink a bathtub full a day. Yeah, the guy that wakes up and smokes all day long every single day will probably have issues, same as someone using alcohol that way. Also there are the people who already have issues self medicating. Finally some people should just not do certain substances. We all know those instant ahole, just add alcohol types. They exist for other mind altering substances as well.

[fifth_column]

Anyone here smoke pot?  I don't and I can't because of my job, but even if I could I wouldn't do it.

When you smoke pot do you always get high?  Is that the intention?  I can have alcohol without getting high (drunk) and I do like the taste of many different drinks, but I wonder if pot smokers like the taste of the pot smoke. 

The previous reply by MikeB is right on the money.  Having a single drink does have an effect.  And the more you drink in frequency and volume, the less effect it has.  The same isn't as true of marijuana.

Thinking of being "high" the same as being "drunk" is inaccurate as well.  The two states are so different to make comparisons meaningless. 

Smokers do like the taste and the effects of different types of marijuana.  Different strains can create significantly different sensations.  Some make a person very energetic, opposite to the stereotypical "stoner" image. 

Any substance can be abused.  Marijuana is not physically addictive, alcohol is.  Alcohol is much more toxic.  Someone would have to smoke something like 1500 pounds in a short period before it got toxic.  I can't find any stats at the moment but alcohol is toxic at much much lower doses.

[makattak]

The article brings up some good points. I'm a legalization advocate. I don't think marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol and is probably much less dangerous. It's good to have empirical evidence being gathered and analyzed though.  Prohibition severely limits research and causes potency to increase.  

The article is referring to "heavy users."  I haven't seen any evidence showing a link between casual use and mental health issues.  I think it's the same for alcohol; having a glass of wine with dinner and a nightcap before going to bed doesn't make one an alcoholic or cause any significant negative physical or mental health issues.  Neither does having a drag on a joint at those same times.  Moderation in all things, and all that.  In fact, moderate alcohol use can be considered therapeutic; it's relaxing and is often done while socializing. In a legal state the same could be said for marijuana.

The article mentions the potency issue: "But the marijuana sold today is not what we smoked, which at 1 percent to 2 percent THC was the equivalent of smoking oregano. Today’s weed is insanely more potent, as are products like “wax” and “shatter”—forms of butane hash oil designed to be vaped or dabbed that come pretty close to 100 percent THC."

Those hard-core users tend towards "dabs" and the really high-potency stuff, just like heavy drinkers tend towards high-potency distilled alcohol.

This, I think is a particularly important point:  "A nice wine can complement a good meal. But in a different context, “alcohol can cause bar fights. It can cause drunken driving. It can cause domestic violence. It causes terrible violence,” he says. “Yet we’re able to sort of keep those two ideas in our head: that there’s one kind of alcohol consumption that can just put [people] to sleep, and there’s another kind that can cause violence. With marijuana, those two things are also true, but we’ve sort of forgotten the second thing exists.”

The vast majority of marijuana users have no issues with using it responsibly, just like the majority of alcohol users.  And in my experience, it is much easier to become significantly impaired (to the point of being a danger to oneself) with alcohol than with marijuana.  

One issue with that "marijuana is probably much less dangerous", why the correlation with increased violent crime? One would think there would be a substitution effect as people get their kicks from weed instead of booze and IF it were less dangerous we'd see a decrease in crime. Instead, we are seeing an increase in states with legalized weed. Unless you believe that people who smoke weed are just ADDING weed to the amount of alcohol they would generally take OR that the new weed users were not alcohol users at all-- therefore little or no substitution is taking place-- only then would crime be increasing. If the more likely scenario where substitution is taking place AND if marijuana were less dangerous than alcohol, we'd see a decrease. The implications of the data suggest that it is not less dangerous than alcohol.

Additionally, the consequences for developing minds seem particularly concerning.

[fifth_column]

Correlation does not prove causation.  There is certainly more than one factor influencing violent crime.  Dispensaries have to work on a cash-only basis due to federal prohibition.  That may contribute to an uptick in violent crime, unrelated to the use of the substance.

[makattak]

Correlation does not prove causation.  There is certainly more than one factor influencing violent crime.  Dispensaries have to work on a cash-only basis due to federal prohibition.  That may contribute to an uptick in violent crime, unrelated to the use of the substance.

No, but correlation provides evidence for causation. The "well, just because it's correlated doesn't mean anything," is rather weak. No, it MIGHT mean nothing, but when you hear hoofbeats, you think horse, not zebra.

The increase was a 15% higher murder rate in the states with legalized medical marijuana vs those without. Your explanation seems more than a little lacking.

And, if you'd have read the article, the concerns are not just about heavy users, but also early users, as well. The effects on a developing mind, as I noted, are concerning.

[DittoHead]

Those statistics deserve some skepticism.

if, in fact, there were a tight, clearly illustrated link between cannabis legalization and increases in violent crime, that would certainly be an important bit of evidence to consider as legalization continues. But Berenson doesn’t come close to showing this. Rather, this paragraph is a case study in how to misleadingly use statistics to make oversimplified arguments about human behavior and public policy.
...
Berenson laments the fact that anyone who points out that marijuana legalization could have certain net-negative effects “may be mocked as a modern-day believer in ‘Reefer Madness,’ the notorious 1936 movie that portrays young people descending into insanity and violence after smoking marijuana.” But if you don’t want to be lumped in with Reefer Madness, don’t make unjustified claims about reefer!

[makattak]

Those statistics deserve some skepticism.

Your link deserves some skepticism, as well.

He states "there's no reason to choose 2014 as a year" followed closely by "While Alaska and Oregon did officially legalize marijuana then"...

That's a rather blatant self-rebuttal.

Further, he's wrong about Colorado. "While Alaska and Oregon did officially legalize marijuana then, Colorado and Washington did so in 2012."

No, in Colorado, they VOTED to legalize weed in 2012, "The Colorado Amendment 64, which was passed by voters on November 6, 2012, led to legalization in January 2014." (From Wiki)

Oh hey, 2014 is important for Colorado, as well.

Let's take a look at Washington, "I-502 mandated that rules for producers, processors and retailers be in place by December 1, 2013. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board had initially anticipated the first proposed section would be approved in April.[94] Distribution of draft rules to all stakeholders was planned May, with initial filing of all rules in June, before public hearings and adoption of the rules, to begin taking initial applications by September, and to begin issuing licenses in December 2013." (from Wiki, as well)

OH, there was ONE MONTH in Washington before 2014 where the numbers might be skewed!!!


Additionally, his pointing out that Oregon didn't fit the trend in the first couple of years actually ought to be a warning. Look what digging into the numbers resulted in:

In 2015, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed an emergency bill declaring marijuana sales legal to recreational users from dispensaries starting October 1, 2015, during an "early sales" period, through the end of 2016. Additional legislation signed into law by Governor Brown in March 2016 allowed the sale of medical and recreational marijuana from the same outlets.[50] Effective January 1, 2017, marijuana can be sold for recreational use only by businesses that have obtained a "recreational license" from the OLCC; such businesses can also sell for medical use.[51] Medical marijuana dispensaries that had not obtained a recreational license were no longer permitted to sell for recreational use after 2016. In mid-December 2016, there were fewer than 100 Oregon businesses licensed to sell recreational marijuana, whereas there were more than 300 medical-marijuana dispensaries[51] (down from a peak of 425).[3] However, the number of applications for recreational licenses jumped sharply in the last months of 2016, and the number of licensed retailers grew from 99 to 260 in the one-month span from early December 2016 to early January 2017.[3]

From Wiki, again.

So, the digging into this debunking appears to actually make a stronger case. ANY TIME before 2014 would not include the effects of legalized weed, so he was perfectly justified in choosing 2014. (And the debunker seems to be talking out of his... imagination.)

Additionally, it appears that full implementation of legal weed didn't really occur in Oregon until nearly 2017, so pointing out that it didn't see an increase in the years prior to 2017¹ actually helps strengthen the point.


(For completeness, full legalization of weed in Alaska took effect in February of 2015 and state licensed dispensaries opened in 2016- so 2014 was actually too early for Oregon and Alaska.)

Your debunker appears to have an agenda or at least a lack of curiosity once his priors had been justified.





1: and yet, when included in the other 3 states who had previous implemented, still averages a much higher rate of violent crime, which makes the results seem to be under-counting crime increases.  

[MikeB]

I’m extremely skeptical we have enough time and data to correlate Marijuana legalization with Crime, especially something like murder. How long has it even been fully legal in at least one state, putting aside Alaskas’ experiment decades ago. We are looking at what 6 or 7 years and a handful of states? Also while crime in general has been on the decline for a couple decades I believe there was some uptick in the last few years especially for murder, looking at you Chicago and Baltimore for examples. I don’t think that creates enough of a dataset to make any real conclusions.

Look. We are all into guns, so let’s look at this the way we do studies and talk about guns from uninformed people. If I recall correctly that same exact rise in murders was blamed on gun laws being more lax and relaxed restrictions on carrying guns. I think we were all pretty skeptical of that conclusion. As for the effects of marijuana, look at it this way. Having people who have never tried it explain it is like those people who want to outlaw all guns since they are all equivalent to Fully Semi-Automatic 40mm Revolvers with shoulder things that go up and accept clips that hold 100 bullet magazines. Seriously it is very often just like that. I’m not saying no one is allowed an opinion, but having people that never tried it explain the dangers can be laughable. Of course just like guns it’s always for the children.  

[makattak]

I’m extremely skeptical we have enough time and data to correlate Marijuana legalization with Crime, especially something like murder. How long has it even been fully legal in at least one state, putting aside Alaskas’ experiment decades ago. We are looking at what 6 or 7 years and a handful of states? Also while crime in general has been on the decline for a couple decades I believe there was some uptick in the last few years especially for murder, looking at you Chicago and Baltimore for examples. I don’t think that creates enough of a dataset to make any real conclusions.

Look. We are all into guns, so let’s look at this the way we do studies and talk about guns from uninformed people. If I recall correctly that same exact rise in murders was blamed on gun laws being more lax and relaxed restrictions on carrying guns. I think we were all pretty skeptical of that conclusion. As for the effects of marijuana, look at it this way. Having people who have never tried it explain it is like those people who want to outlaw all guns since they are all equivalent to Fully Semi-Automatic 40mm Revolvers with shoulder things that go up and accept clips that hold 100 bullet magazines. Seriously it is very often just like that. I’m not saying no one is allowed an opinion, but having people that never tried it explain the dangers can be laughable. Of course just like guns it’s always for the children.  

6 or 7 years over several states should make for a pretty good experiment. The data will be cluttered, but as I've mentioned many times, if you would read the article, the author talks about how violent crime everywhere has been increasing, but has increased significantly more in the states with legal weed. It's not just that violent crime is going up everywhere and he only looked at those states. He compared the increase in those states and the increase across the country and the legal weed states increase was almost double the increase across the rest of the country.

If murders were going up over a multi-year period, but increasing by higher rates in states with more lax gun laws, that would be an important data point. It's not dispositive that the gun laws caused it, but it would be something that needs to be either explained or accounted for (e.g. yes, there is more crime, but the rights are worth it). THANKFULLY, more guns means less crime, which makes our argument easier, but if it were not the case, we'd need address it.

You can say we need some more time for certainty about the effects of legal weed, but 4 states is more than significant for trends.


As for "You have to use it to know about it", I really don't think it is necessary to imbibe in alcohol to recognize the dangers there, or to use opioids to understand how they work, either.

It's one thing to be completely ignorant of how guns work versus simply not shooting them. Many people who have never shot a gun understand how they work and are not foolish about them. You don't have to "experience" it to understand guns. Nor marijuana. (or alcohol, or cocaine, or meth, or...)

[Hawkmoon]

Anyone here smoke pot?  I don't and I can't because of my job, but even if I could I wouldn't do it.

When you smoke pot do you always get high?  Is that the intention?  I can have alcohol without getting high (drunk) and I do like the taste of many different drinks, but I wonder if pot smokers like the taste of the pot smoke. 

Never smoked it (even without inhaling), but I've been exposed to it at parties and, particularly, many years ago when the Harlem Globetrotters came to my town. I could hardly see the court through the haze of marijuana smoke. The stuff smells like burning rope (which it is, essentially). How could anyone like that?

[MikeB]

6 or 7 years over several states should make for a pretty good experiment. The data will be cluttered, but as I've mentioned many times, if you would read the article, the author talks about how violent crime everywhere has been increasing, but has increased significantly more in the states with legal weed. It's not just that violent crime is going up everywhere and he only looked at those states. He compared the increase in those states and the increase across the country and the legal weed states increase was almost double the increase across the rest of the country.

If murders were going up over a multi-year period, but increasing by higher rates in states with more lax gun laws, that would be an important data point. It's not dispositive that the gun laws caused it, but it would be something that needs to be either explained or accounted for (e.g. yes, there is more crime, but the rights are worth it). THANKFULLY, more guns means less crime, which makes our argument easier, but if it were not the case, we'd need address it.

You can say we need some more time for certainty about the effects of legal weed, but 4 states is more than significant for trends.


As for "You have to use it to know about it", I really don't think it is necessary to imbibe in alcohol to recognize the dangers there, or to use opioids to understand how they work, either.

It's one thing to be completely ignorant of how guns work versus simply not shooting them. Many people who have never shot a gun understand how they work and are not foolish about them. You don't have to "experience" it to understand guns. Nor marijuana. (or alcohol, or cocaine, or meth, or...)

First 6 to 7 years would be 2 states. From 2014 I think 4, and it may not have actually been legal in those two during 2014, that was when ballot measure passed. In the last two years there have been maybe 5 more, and at least half of those are just decriminalized, not commercially legal sales. So not there is not enough time/data at all. I think you would need a decade at least, better two. During this same time period we had economic problems and that historically is the primary driver of crime.

And yes many people are completely ignorant of how it works, just look at a lot of responses to this thread. When people don't even understand what being high on marijuana is and isn't they aren't capable of making an informed decision on the matter. Of course those that really care about freedom would say guns, booze, and marijuana should all be available for use to responsible adults. That would make for an awesome store as well. I don't say that to insult anyone, but seriously getting high on marijuana isn't what a lot of people seem to think and that lack of understanding does lead to what really are laughable comments.

[zxcvbob]

Never tried the stuff, so I don't know what it's like.  I assume kinda like when you take just the right amount of Vicodin and all the pain goes away and you are relaxed but still mostly clear-headed.  That's probably not right but it's the closest thing I can relate.  If it were legal, I *might* try it but I don't know.  It's not a big issue for me.

Now that that's out of the way,   it is going to be very difficult to find unbiased research about marijuana use because the feds have not allowed any clinical studies for so long, and the people who compile what data there is all may have their own agendas.  You've got the people saying how safe it is because they want to get high (Woody Harrelson, etc) and you've got the "Reefer Madness" scare mongers and the Bible-thumpers who think anything people find enjoyable must be banned.  And everywhere in between.  I will read or listen to research by either side, but always skeptically.

[HeroHog]

I smoked a fair amount in the late 70's. I understand that today's strains are MUCH stronger. Back then, nice mellow high. Ya sit around, listen to music, then get the munchies. Pot made me want to vegetate, eat, or screw back then.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Makes me giggle, same as alcohol, but it's more... gentle? I guess is the word I'd use. However, alcohol I stop WAYYY before I get anything close to what I'd call drunk and I tend to be more paranoid about drinking too much.
In all honesty, if I want the effect, I'd rather smoke pot. It's easier on me all over. Get happy, get sleepy and then wake up in the morning feeling fine.

[fifth_column]

Makes me giggle, same as alcohol, but it's more... gentle? I guess is the word I'd use. However, alcohol I stop WAYYY before I get anything close to what I'd call drunk and I tend to be more paranoid about drinking too much.
In all honesty, if I want the effect, I'd rather smoke pot. It's easier on me all over. Get happy, get sleepy, go on a murderous rampage and then wake up in the morning feeling fine.

FTFY . . .

[BlueStarLizzard]

FTFY . . .

Well, I thought that part was just a given. 

[Jamisjockey]

 

Guns aren't safe either, but we scramble to fight to keep them legal.

Freedom is freedom.  IDGAF what people want to consume.  I'm good with legalizing heroin.