-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)
- Thread starter lamb22
- Start date
rosy3 said:
Interested to read your data that confirms you have it forwards Rosy.
I agree, it is an individual thing I haven't said anything to the contrary.
I don't always love IFLS but for anyone who's interested here is a summary of state of recent research on cannabis.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/11-key-findings-from-one-of-the-most-comprehensive-reports-ever-on-the-health-effects-of-marijuana/all/
"With that in mind, here are some of the most striking findings from the report:
- There was conclusive or substantial evidence (the most definitive levels) that cannabis or cannabinoids, found in the marijuana plant, can be an effective treatment for chronic pain, according to the report, which is "by far the most common" reason people request medical marijuana.
- With similar certainty, they found that cannabis can help treat muscle spasms related to multiple sclerosis and can help prevent or treat nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
-The authors found evidence that suggested that marijuana increased the risk of a driving crash.
They also found evidence that in states with legal access to marijuana, children were more likely to accidentally consume cannabis.
We've looked at these numbers before and seen that the overall increases in risk are small — one study found that the rate of overall accidental ingestion among children went from 1.2 per 100,000 two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization. There's still a far higher chance parents call poison control because of kids eating crayons or diaper cream, but it's still important to know that some increased risk could exist.
- Perhaps surprisingly, the authors found moderate evidence (a pretty decent level of certainty and an indication that good data exists) that cannabis was not connected to any increased risk of the lung cancers or head and neck cancers associated with smoking. However, they did find some limited evidence suggesting that chronic or frequent users may have higher rates of a certain type of testicular cancer.
- Connections to heart conditions were less clear. There's insufficient evidence to support or refute the idea that cannabis might increase the risk of a heart attack, though there was some limited evidence that smoking cannabis might be a trigger for a heart attack.
- There was substantial evidence that regular marijuana smokers are more likely to experience chronic bronchitis and that stopping smoking was likely to improve these conditions. There's not enough evidence to say that that cannabis does or doesn't increase the risk for respiratory conditions like asthma.
- There was limited evidence that smoking marijuana could have some anti-inflammatory effects.
- Substantial evidence suggests a link between prenatal cannabis exposure (when a pregnant woman uses marijuana) and lower birth weight, and there was limited evidence suggesting that this use could increase pregnancy complications and increase the risk that a baby would have to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit.
- In terms of mental health, substantial evidence shows an increased risk of developing schizophrenia among frequent users, something that studies have shown is a particular concern for people at risk for schizophrenia in the first place. There was also moderate evidence that cannabis use is connected to a small increased risk for depression and an increased risk for social anxiety disorder.
- Limited evidence showed a connection between cannabis use and impaired academic achievement, something that has been shown to be especially true for people who begin smoking regularly during adolescence (which has also been shown to increase the risk for problematic use).
- One of the most interesting and perhaps most important conclusions of the report is that far more research on cannabis is needed. Importantly, in most cases, saying cannabis was connected to an increased risk doesn't mean marijuana use caused that risk.
And it's hard to conduct research on marijuana right now. The report says that's largely because of regulatory barriers, including marijuana's Schedule I classification by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the fact that researchers often can't access the same sorts of marijuana that people actually use. Even in states where it's legal to buy marijuana, federal regulations prevent researchers from using that same product"
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/11-key-findings-from-one-of-the-most-comprehensive-reports-ever-on-the-health-effects-of-marijuana/all/
"With that in mind, here are some of the most striking findings from the report:
- There was conclusive or substantial evidence (the most definitive levels) that cannabis or cannabinoids, found in the marijuana plant, can be an effective treatment for chronic pain, according to the report, which is "by far the most common" reason people request medical marijuana.
- With similar certainty, they found that cannabis can help treat muscle spasms related to multiple sclerosis and can help prevent or treat nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
-The authors found evidence that suggested that marijuana increased the risk of a driving crash.
They also found evidence that in states with legal access to marijuana, children were more likely to accidentally consume cannabis.
We've looked at these numbers before and seen that the overall increases in risk are small — one study found that the rate of overall accidental ingestion among children went from 1.2 per 100,000 two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization. There's still a far higher chance parents call poison control because of kids eating crayons or diaper cream, but it's still important to know that some increased risk could exist.
- Perhaps surprisingly, the authors found moderate evidence (a pretty decent level of certainty and an indication that good data exists) that cannabis was not connected to any increased risk of the lung cancers or head and neck cancers associated with smoking. However, they did find some limited evidence suggesting that chronic or frequent users may have higher rates of a certain type of testicular cancer.
- Connections to heart conditions were less clear. There's insufficient evidence to support or refute the idea that cannabis might increase the risk of a heart attack, though there was some limited evidence that smoking cannabis might be a trigger for a heart attack.
- There was substantial evidence that regular marijuana smokers are more likely to experience chronic bronchitis and that stopping smoking was likely to improve these conditions. There's not enough evidence to say that that cannabis does or doesn't increase the risk for respiratory conditions like asthma.
- There was limited evidence that smoking marijuana could have some anti-inflammatory effects.
- Substantial evidence suggests a link between prenatal cannabis exposure (when a pregnant woman uses marijuana) and lower birth weight, and there was limited evidence suggesting that this use could increase pregnancy complications and increase the risk that a baby would have to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit.
- In terms of mental health, substantial evidence shows an increased risk of developing schizophrenia among frequent users, something that studies have shown is a particular concern for people at risk for schizophrenia in the first place. There was also moderate evidence that cannabis use is connected to a small increased risk for depression and an increased risk for social anxiety disorder.
- Limited evidence showed a connection between cannabis use and impaired academic achievement, something that has been shown to be especially true for people who begin smoking regularly during adolescence (which has also been shown to increase the risk for problematic use).
- One of the most interesting and perhaps most important conclusions of the report is that far more research on cannabis is needed. Importantly, in most cases, saying cannabis was connected to an increased risk doesn't mean marijuana use caused that risk.
And it's hard to conduct research on marijuana right now. The report says that's largely because of regulatory barriers, including marijuana's Schedule I classification by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the fact that researchers often can't access the same sorts of marijuana that people actually use. Even in states where it's legal to buy marijuana, federal regulations prevent researchers from using that same product"
this is the excellent age editorial from 2 days ago. indeed it is a disgrace. 3 deaths on the weekend and successive government deserves some of the blame for their archaic policies. Victoria has a progressive premier atm, so now has never been a better time. its time to act Daniel Andrews.
Ian4 said:
People presented at hospital in various states of mental disarray - some violent, some paranoid, some hallucinating, some psychotic. Why should it be legal for people to drug themselves into an unpredictable mental state?
You can blame me as well if you want, since I'm opposed to legalisation. Blame anyone except those who willingly ingested the sh!t.
*smile*ing hopeless.
Besides, Andrews can't even stop a few Sudanese from robbing the joint blind. There are people ready to string him up already without this lunacy.
Have any of the people who suffered overdoses on the weekend been pursued by police on possession charges? If not, how would 'decriminalization' help? People are currently free to seek medical help for drug overdoses if they need it without fear of prosecution, Yes, no?
Giardiasis said:
If people drugged themselves up and sat in the corner staring at the wall, then it wouldn't be a problem. But when they go out and get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and end up injuring or killing someone else, or committing random acts of crime then your argument falls apart. I own my body too.
You can only justify violence if there is a rights violation. Killing or injuring others hurts the physical integrity of other people's bodies (their private property), so they are justifiably illegal. The consumption of drugs in itself does not violate anyone else's private property. Driving a car is dangerous whilst under the influence of drugs, hence the owners of roads are incentivised to make it a condition of use that drivers cannot be under the influence, but it is up to them. You have not demonstrated that my argument falls apart, your argument is a non sequitur. You justify violence without a rights violation.1eyedtiger said:
As a side note, the logical conclusion of your argument is that alcohol should be illegal. I'm interested to know if that's what you'd advocate also?
<
Australian Economics
|
Brexited
>
