Lots of facts about marijuana
I happen to have come across this article about the state of knowledge on marijuana, now that it’s legal in so many states. It is an interview with Kevin Hill, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Addiction Psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The following are some excerpts from Hill’s remarks:
We know a lot more about both the benefits and the risks of cannabis use, although I would say that the rate and scale of research has not kept pace with the interest…
Unfortunately, the loudest voices in the cannabis debate often are people who have political or financial skin in the game, and the two sides are entrenched. Pro-cannabis people will say that cannabis is the greatest medication ever, and harmless. Others — often in the same field that I’m in, people who treat patients, people who do research with cannabis — will at times misrepresent the facts as well…
I think the greatest example is when you talk about the addictive nature of cannabis. You can become addicted to cannabis, though most people don’t…It’s less addictive than alcohol, less addictive than opioids, but just because it’s less addictive doesn’t mean that it’s not addictive. There’s a subset of people — whom I treat frequently — who are using cannabis to the detriment of work, school, and relationships…I often compare cannabis to alcohol. They’re very similar in that most people who use never need to see somebody like me. But the difference is that we all recognize the dangers of alcohol. If you go into a room of 200 high school kids, they know it’s dangerous and binge drinking among high schoolers is way down. But if you ask that same group about cannabis, you’re going to get all different answers. Data that suggests that although cannabis use among young people is flat — that’s another misrepresentation, that it’s going up — the perception of risk among those young people is going down. So, while everyone’s talking about it, and stores are opening in Brookline, in Leicester, and all over the state, adults and young people are not clear about the risks.
There’s a great deal more at the link. I suggest, if you’re interested in the topic – which I certainly am – that you read the whole thing.
I saw a recent article on the opioid crisis. Yes, fatalities are down, they said, but usage is not. One factor that I was unaware of, is that Naloxone can now be purchased over the counter in most states.
Today at the Safeway Supermarket in Chico I saw a fat, slick, glossy magazine on sale next to the register called: “Women and Weed”
Former NYT reporter and novelist Alex Brenson has written a good book about this.
The fact that the Dems are pushing this is another reason to not vote for them.
How is more drug addicted Americans a good idea?
“Women and Weed”
I saw that at our local Sprouts store in Sunnyvale, they’re a food store with organic produce, ethical and trendy groceries, etc.
This is a complex issue for me. Smoked plenty in the 70s and 80s, enjoyed it, none for decades, overall preferred it to alcohol, our society hardly needs another intoxicant, Dems are in favor, are new cultivars more powerful/dangerous than the weaker weed of the past … yeah, conflicting currents …
Alex Berenson’s book is called “Tell Your Children,” and it is very convincing about the links between marijuana, psychosis, and violence. The potential for addiction is also covered. I recommend this book highly.
JimNorCal, one of the issues right now is that marijuana is now much more powerful than it was in our youth. Back in the seventies, the amount of THC was only 1-2%, so many users did not even feel a buzz. But now the amount of THC is 25%. A much higher dose is attained by the casual user than in the old days, and it is heavy use–the higher dose–that makes the difference.
The one disappointment in the article is that he didn’t point out the metabolic differences between THC and alcohol. Alcohol is metabolized by the liver while THC attaches itself to fats in the brain. As a result, the biological half life of alcohol is in hours while THC is in days. While the high may not be apparent the cognitive effects remain while the THC is slowly being eliminated.
The Claremont Review didn’t think much of the Berenson book: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/reefer-madness/
What RESPONSIBLE government sits back and says “Gee, let’s give our citizens yet another way to get f*&%$# up.”
I have a challenge I issue often to people in favor of legalization. Give me a reason for it without referring to alcohol. I have never gotten a rational answer to that challenge. Tax revenue sometimes comes up, but that really isn’t a sound argument. You want more tax revenue just increase taxes.
The Claremont Review saw some positives in the Berenson book, but pointed out the negatives as well. I would not characterize the overall tone as “didn’t think much of” — just not a bandwagon cheerleader for it.
I suspect the headline writer was the one who chose the shout-out to the early panic movie, which was made in 1936.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/reefer-madness/
Blast from the past.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/07/liberty-federalism-states-act/
by Ron Paul.
Current status of the bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STATES_Act
Although I think the amount of research and public attention now being directed to cannabis & marijuana use is long overdue (being stifled for decades for various reasons), one of our sons is violently allergic to second-hand pot smoke, and has been driven out of one job, and possible also his current one, by co-workers’ habits.
Will the weed supporters address negative public ramifications with the same passion as the tobacco haters did?
I stand by my assessment of the review. It’s very polite, but its key point is that the book’s argument doesn’t support its thesis.