5 Lies You’ve Been Told About the US Legalizing Marijuana

[icehorse]

I'm just as against alcohol, I think the solution is high taxation of both pot and alcohol, they're too cheap, Its too cheap to throw your life away, if you really had to pay for the substances you might think twice about throwing your life away and/or practice some moderation.

There are some people who are easily addicted. Those people should stay way from mind altering drugs in general. But most people can maintain a healthy relationship with *some* of the mind altering drugs. You can have a healthy relationship with weed or with psychedelics. You cannot have a healthy relationship with meth or cocaine.

 

[Lyndon]

Depends on your definition of "healthy"!!

 

[icehorse]

Depends on your definition of "healthy"!!

"Healthy" by all normal, medical standards.

 

[Lyndon]

That would be sober, no ifs ands or buts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That would be sober, no ifs ands or buts.

Then why do so many drugs benefit different conditions--physical and mental--and why are some beneficial in moderate use? And if the medical standards where truly "sober, no ifs and or buts," it's very unlikely that any form of opiate would be used, since even with moderate and responsible use they can leave you feeling buzzed.

 

[SomeRandom]

That would be sober, no ifs ands or buts.

If that were true, I doubt doctors would be prescribing any medication at all then.

 

[crossfire]

There are three recreational marijuana shops less than a block from my house. I don't use drugs. Here are my observations:

• When the shops first opened and had long lines of patrons waiting to get in, drug dealers would try to peddle different drugs to those waiting in line. The folks waiting in line wanted no part of it, and basically told them to buzz off. I don't see them trying this anymore.
• The amount of traffic accidents in the neighborhood seems to have decreased. However, the number of people driving 10 or more miles miles per hour under the speed limit has definitely increased.
• The ATM's in the area are frequently out of cash, since the pot shops can only deal in cash. Business must be good.
• I haven't seen any decrease in the number of people addicted to other drugs, especially opioid and meth users. However, I have spoken to quite a few people who are happy to be able to use medical marijuana, since they want to avoid opioids. (Many of the opioid users in the area got hooked on it from taking prescription opioid pain medication, and are now hooked on heroin. The medical marijuana users don't want to wind up like these poor souls.)

 

[suncowiam]

Yeah, I used to be a loser, regret it now!!

Hey, you live, you learn.

I don't believe those that are responsible should have their freedom taken away from them.

Anyways, hope you're doing much better now.

 

[Milton Platt]

An article at the Cheat Sheet notes some of the evidence from Washington, Colorado and Oregon since legalization of marijuana in these states. The fears and warnings about the effects of such measures have not come to pass. The following are excerpts from each enumerated item. Please click the link for further information and further links to the evidence:

1. Crime will increase

. . . so far, in areas that have legalized marijuana, crime rates have softened up; and we don’t mean those connected to cannabis. The research is still ongoing, but preliminary reports indicate that legalization has freed up law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. In Colorado, scientists are looking at the correlation (which doesn’t mean causation, remember) between legalization and lower rates of homicide and assault.​

2. Teen use rates will skyrocket

Interestingly enough, there has been an opposite trend -- teens in legal states have actually been using pot at lower rates. This could always change, however. It’s likely the case that teens who wanted to use marijuana already were, and that legalization did little to change their behaviors.​

3. Public health will suffer

If anything, more marijuana has led to better outcomes, as cannabis tends to be a much safer alternative to alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs.​

4. The roads will be more dangerous

, , , if we look at the numbers, it doesn’t appear that the roads are any more dangerous than they were before prohibition was lifted in legal states.​

5. Enforcement costs will spike

. . . the truth is, law enforcement costs fall when a black market is no longer around to enforce, and this ends up saving the public gobs of money.​

Any evidence contrary to these items is welcomed.

I'm on your side in this one. But #3 has not been demonstrated to be true. People who use alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs do not necessarily abandon those habits when they smoke cannabis.

 

[Nous]

I'm on your side in this one. But #3 has not been demonstrated to be true. People who use alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs do not necessarily abandon those habits when they smoke cannabis.

You are right. Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, the link that the article provides for #3 merely notes several studies on the relative harms of marijuana, alcohol, tobacco and "other drugs".

However, I do wish to note a few studies where marijuana use was found to be associated with better health and public health outcomes:

. . . a 2013 study published in The American Journal of Medicine . . . found marijuana use was associated with lower rates of obesity, lower levels of fasting insulin and insulin resistance -- high and low insulin levels can cause hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, respectively -- and smaller waist circumferences. In other words, and as researchers speculated, it seems marijuana improves insulin control, and thus regulates body weight as well.

Other studies have found similar results, such as one from 2011 that involved two surveys. One found 22 percent of people who didn’t smoke weed were obese, compared to 14 percent of regular smokers, while the other found 25 percent of nonsmokers were obese, compared to 17 percent of regular smokers. Again, researchers were unsure of how this effect occurred.​

http://www.medicaldaily.com/pulse/s...r-bmi-why-pot-smokers-tend-be-skinnier-320854

Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1999-2010

Abstract

Importance Opioid analgesic overdose mortality continues to rise in the United States, driven by increases in prescribing for chronic pain. Because chronic pain is a major indication for medical cannabis, laws that establish access to medical cannabis may change overdose mortality related to opioid analgesics in states that have enacted them.

Objective To determine the association between the presence of state medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality.

[. . .]

Results Three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) had medical cannabis laws effective prior to 1999. Ten states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont) enacted medical cannabis laws between 1999 and 2010. 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. Examination of the association between medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in each year after implementation of the law showed that such laws were associated with a lower rate of overdose mortality that generally strengthened over time: year 1 (−19.9%; 95% CI, −30.6% to −7.7%; P=.002), year 2 (−25.2%; 95% CI, −40.6% to −5.9%; P=.01), year 3 (−23.6%; 95% CI, −41.1% to −1.0%; P=.04), year 4 (−20.2%; 95% CI, −33.6% to −4.0%; P=.02), year 5 (−33.7%; 95% CI, −50.9% to −10.4%; P=.008), and year 6 (−33.3%; 95% CI, −44.7% to −19.6%; P<.001). In secondary analyses, the findings remained similar.​

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1898878&_ga=1.153494456.100022253.1403713476

Couples’ marijuana use is inversely related to their intimate partner violence over the first 9 years of marriage.

Research on the association between marijuana use and intimate partner violence (IPV) has generated inconsistent findings, and has been primarily based on cross-sectional data. We examined whether husbands’ and wives’ marijuana use predicted both husbands’ and wives’ IPV perpetration over the first 9 years of marriage (Wave 1, n = 634 couples). We also examined moderation by antisocial behavior, the spouse’s marijuana use, and whether IPV was reported during the year before marriage. These predictive associations were calculated using a time-lagged multivariate generalized multilevel model, simultaneously estimating predictors of husband and wife IPV. In fully adjusted models, we found that more frequent marijuana use by husbands and wives predicted less frequent IPV perpetration by husbands. Husbands’ marijuana use also predicted less frequent IPV perpetration by wives. Moderation analyses demonstrated that couples in which both spouses used marijuana frequently reported the least frequent IPV perpetration. There was a significant positive association between wives’ marijuana use and wives’ IPV perpetration, but only among wives who had already reported IPV perpetration during the year before marriage. These findings suggest there may be an overall inverse association between marijuana use and IPV perpetration in newly married couples, although use may be associated with greater risk of perpetration among women with a history of IPV perpetration.​

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0037302
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0037302
I think the study on opioid overdose mortality in states with medical marijuana laws is particularly noteworthy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

She has made no personal attacks against you, she did not promote illicit drug use, and you aren't a mod.

Way to complain about a personal attack against you and then make a broad-sweeping generalization of an attack on most people. Let's approach drugs honestly for once: Everyone who drinks their morning coffee is a drug user; those who use NSAIDs are drug users; those on psychotropic medications are drug users; enjoying a beer after work makes one a drug user; personally, I tend to agree with emerging research suggesting sugar is a drug.
As for "losers," this honest drug user graduated college with distinctions, is generally well liked and highly regarded, "certified" genius, no legal troubles, and with certain drugs I'm even feeling way better than I even ever thought possible.
And, lets not forget Franic Crick was tripping on LSD when he discovered the double-helix of DNA, Steven Jobs like pot and LSD, Hunter S. Thompson used many different drugs, Carl Sagan was a pot head, and of course there are many authors and musicians who are renowned, talented, successful, and drug users.

Thompson killed himself and there's tons of examples of famous people into drugs and alcohol destroying themselves because of it. It's very difficult to maintain a successful lifestyle and be a drug user.

 

[Nous]

It's very difficult to maintain a successful lifestyle and be a drug user.

Nearly 70% of Americans take at least one prescription drug every day, and more half of Americans take 2 prescription drugs daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619132352.htm The most prescribed drugs are antibiotics, antidepressants and opioids. They might be more successful if they took less debilitating drugs (such as marijuana).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nearly 70% of Americans take at least one prescription drug every day, and more half of Americans take 2 prescription drugs daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619132352.htm The most prescribed drugs are antibiotics, antidepressants and opioids. They might be more successful if they took less debilitating drugs (such as marijuana).

I agree about the opiods and weed.

 

[McBell]

An article at the Cheat Sheet notes some of the evidence from Washington, Colorado and Oregon since legalization of marijuana in these states. The fears and warnings about the effects of such measures have not come to pass. The following are excerpts from each enumerated item. Please click the link for further information and further links to the evidence:

1. Crime will increase

. . . so far, in areas that have legalized marijuana, crime rates have softened up; and we don’t mean those connected to cannabis. The research is still ongoing, but preliminary reports indicate that legalization has freed up law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. In Colorado, scientists are looking at the correlation (which doesn’t mean causation, remember) between legalization and lower rates of homicide and assault.​

2. Teen use rates will skyrocket

Interestingly enough, there has been an opposite trend -- teens in legal states have actually been using pot at lower rates. This could always change, however. It’s likely the case that teens who wanted to use marijuana already were, and that legalization did little to change their behaviors.​

3. Public health will suffer

If anything, more marijuana has led to better outcomes, as cannabis tends to be a much safer alternative to alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs.​

4. The roads will be more dangerous

, , , if we look at the numbers, it doesn’t appear that the roads are any more dangerous than they were before prohibition was lifted in legal states.​

5. Enforcement costs will spike

. . . the truth is, law enforcement costs fall when a black market is no longer around to enforce, and this ends up saving the public gobs of money.​

Any evidence contrary to these items is welcomed.

What about the biggest lie of them all?

Marijuana is NOT "legal" any where in the USA..
Period.

That some states have decided to not enforce Federal Law does not make it legal.

 

[Nous]

What about the biggest lie of them all?

Marijuana is NOT "legal" any where in the USA..
Period.

That some states have decided to not enforce Federal Law does not make it legal.

I have no problem with how the Cheat Sheet article stated the facts about the legalization of marijuana in WA, CO and OR.

 

[Nous]

I agree about the opiods and weed.

What statements exactly do you agree or disagree with relating to "the opioids and weed"?

I assume you don't disagree with the findings of reduced opioid overdose mortality in states with medicinal marijuana laws. I assume that you agree that this one of benefits of legalizing marijuana, along with the other study findings cited in #171.

Antibiotics are one of the drug types that 70% of Americans swallow daily. Here are a couple of the reasons that is detrimental: (1) A recent study published in JAMA found that of adults seeing the doctor for a sore throat, 70% were prescribed antibiotics, even though only about 10% had Streptococcus, the only common cause of sore throat for which antibiotics are effective: US Adult Sore Throat Antibiotics, 1997-2010 This is called "injudicious use" of antibiotics, which, as the CDC has urged, is bad because it is the primary factor in the development of drug-resistant bacteria. This is in addition to the fact that (2) even a single course of antibiotic ravages one’s gut microbiome for some 6 months, which causes people to gain weight and contributes to the devastating and horribly expensive obesity problem in the US. Farm animals have long been given daily doses of antibiotics in order to fatten them up; there is every reason to believe that the same effect occurs in humans for the same reasons: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antibiotics-linked-weight-gain-mice/

Antidepressant drugs are the second most commonly prescribed drugs, which are not just hardly effective compared to placebo, but do more harm than good:

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Antidepressants: Current Status of Research

Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the prespecified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STAR * D analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase​

http://psychrights.org/Research/Dig...essantMetaAnalysisPsychotherPsychosom2010.pdf

Primum non nocere: An evolutionary analysis of whether antidepressants do more harm than good

Most antidepressants are designed to perturb the neurotransmitter serotonin -- an evolutionarily ancient biochemical found in plants, animals and fungi. Many adaptive processes evolved to be regulated by serotonin, including emotion, development, neuronal growth and death, platelet activation and the clotting process, attention, electrolyte balance, and reproduction. It is a principle of evolutionary medicine that the disruption of evolved adaptations will degrade biological functioning. Because serotonin regulates many adaptive processes, antidepressants could have many adverse health effects. For instance . . . they increase the brain’s susceptibility to future episodes after they have been discontinued. Contrary to a widely held belief in psychiatry, studies that purport to show that antidepressants promote neurogenesis are flawed because they all use a method that cannot, by itself, distinguish between neurogenesis and neuronal death. In fact, antidepressants cause neuronal damage and mature neurons to revert to an immature state, both of which may explain why antidepressants also cause neurons to undergo apoptosis (programmed death). Antidepressants can also cause developmental problems, they have adverse effects on sexual and romantic life, and they increase the risk of hyponatremia (low sodium in the blood plasma), bleeding, stroke, and death in the elderly. Our review supports the conclusion that antidepressants generally do more harm than good by disrupting a number of adaptive processes regulated by serotonin.​

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hether_antidepressants_do_more_harm_than_good

 

[McBell]

I have no problem with how the Cheat Sheet article stated the facts about the legalization of marijuana in WA, CO and OR.

Except that it is still illegal...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What statements exactly do you agree or disagree with relating to "the opioids and weed"?

I assume you don't disagree with the findings of reduced opioid overdose mortality in states with medicinal marijuana laws. I assume that you agree that this one of benefits of legalizing marijuana, along with the other study findings cited in #171.

Antibiotics are one of the drug types that 70% of Americans swallow daily. Here are a couple of the reasons that is detrimental: (1) A recent study published in JAMA found that of adults seeing the doctor for a sore throat, 70% were prescribed antibiotics, even though only about 10% had Streptococcus, the only common cause of sore throat for which antibiotics are effective: US Adult Sore Throat Antibiotics, 1997-2010 This is called "injudicious use" of antibiotics, which, as the CDC has urged, is bad because it is the primary factor in the development of drug-resistant bacteria. This is in addition to the fact that (2) even a single course of antibiotic ravages one’s gut microbiome for some 6 months, which causes people to gain weight and contributes to the devastating and horribly expensive obesity problem in the US. Farm animals have long been given daily doses of antibiotics in order to fatten them up; there is every reason to believe that the same effect occurs in humans for the same reasons: Antibiotics Linked to Weight Gain

Antidepressant drugs are the second most commonly prescribed drugs, which are not just hardly effective compared to placebo, but do more harm than good:

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Antidepressants: Current Status of Research

Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the prespecified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STAR * D analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase​

http://psychrights.org/Research/Dig...essantMetaAnalysisPsychotherPsychosom2010.pdf

Primum non nocere: An evolutionary analysis of whether antidepressants do more harm than good

Most antidepressants are designed to perturb the neurotransmitter serotonin -- an evolutionarily ancient biochemical found in plants, animals and fungi. Many adaptive processes evolved to be regulated by serotonin, including emotion, development, neuronal growth and death, platelet activation and the clotting process, attention, electrolyte balance, and reproduction. It is a principle of evolutionary medicine that the disruption of evolved adaptations will degrade biological functioning. Because serotonin regulates many adaptive processes, antidepressants could have many adverse health effects. For instance . . . they increase the brain’s susceptibility to future episodes after they have been discontinued. Contrary to a widely held belief in psychiatry, studies that purport to show that antidepressants promote neurogenesis are flawed because they all use a method that cannot, by itself, distinguish between neurogenesis and neuronal death. In fact, antidepressants cause neuronal damage and mature neurons to revert to an immature state, both of which may explain why antidepressants also cause neurons to undergo apoptosis (programmed death). Antidepressants can also cause developmental problems, they have adverse effects on sexual and romantic life, and they increase the risk of hyponatremia (low sodium in the blood plasma), bleeding, stroke, and death in the elderly. Our review supports the conclusion that antidepressants generally do more harm than good by disrupting a number of adaptive processes regulated by serotonin.​

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hether_antidepressants_do_more_harm_than_good

I'm aware of your anti-psychiatry stance and don't care to bicker with you about it. It's not going to keep me from taking my medications.

 

[Nous]

I'm aware of your anti-psychiatry stance and don't care to bicker with you about it. It's not going to keep me from taking my medications.

The facts I quoted are from the peer-reviewed literature. Is it too difficult for you to respond to them, or to answer the questions I asked you?

 

[Nous]

Except that it is still illegal...

And your point is?