home

Comparing Marijuana to Alcohol

SAFER Colorado (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation) Executive Director Mason Tvert explains in this interview in the Denver Post why alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana and how medical pot issues are being overblown.

Mason says the future is vaporization rather than smoking:

The future is vaporization. You basically heat marijuana to the point where it releases the chemicals and you inhale vapors. It never combusts so there's no smoke. There's never been a documented case of a marijuana- only smoker acquiring lung cancer as a result. Never. Not one.

How legalization would help the economy: [More...]

Alcohol is a $131 billion industry and marijuana is projected at $113 billion, which I think is conservative. Just like with alcohol, we would need people to produce the raw product, we would need truck drivers to drive it from one place to another. There are so many jobs. I'm starting to get calls from all of these lobbyist sharks. They're seeing it's a business.

< House to Vote on Health Care Bill Saturday | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If you want to legalize MJ and sell it in a liquor (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:37:00 AM EST
    store along side booze and tobacco products, just say so. But for pete's sake quit with all the "won't hurt ya." It's a drug. It changes your perception of reality. It is dangerous to your body and increases your danger to yourself and to/from others. All "recreational" drugs do that

    kdog - Jefferson didn't have TV blasting ads at young men that drinking beer would make you sexy/smart/funny/popular. He also didn't have TV blasting ads that drinking wine would make you sophisticated. Not to mention the tobacco ads he missed while growing up.

    So sell it but don't allow any advertisement of it and booze. Why?

    Drugs are a problem. Legalizing MJ will not solve the problem. It should give us a better control of the problem and help our law enforcement people focus on other things.

    Speak for yourself... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    I'm with Keith Richards..."I never had a problem with drugs, only policemen".  Drug abuse is a problem, irresponsible use is a problem...not responsible use.

    I can live with an advertising ban...and regulations on sale akin to alcohol/tobacco.  Just give the chains and cages a rest already...thats the main thing, the rest we can work out as we go.  

    Parent

    So ban everything that u think causes problems? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Yes2Truth on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:04:45 AM EST

    Where would you stop?

    Don't legalize it, decriminalize it (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    Cannabis users are going to be real unhappy in the end if they don't stop the legalization train.  All that's really needed is for law enforcement to focus on things that harm others.  Focus efforts on moderating enforcement.  Harm related to cannabis is not about use except in certain circumstances like driving, it is only about secondary damages from the cannabis distribution system.  Let people grow, possess and use their own; lower the profits running through illegal distribution network, thus lowering harm done to others, and enforce any harm that comes to citizens as a result of distribution.  Keep Phillip-Morris and RJ Reynolds out of it.

    Heh (2.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    but people do stupid or even criminal things while not under the influence of any drug in their system, so that argument won't work.

    My point was plain. All the recreational drugs cause problems. All of them change the user's perception of reality to one degree or another. That leads to problems that would not exist if the drugs were not used.

    This is your bias (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    against alterations of consciousness, which are one that is culturally rooted in puritanical concepts in monotheistic cultures, not on some objective reality (not saying that's your reason for believing this, but historically that's where these ideas come from).  Perception of reality/alterations of consciousness are not inherently problematic.  Running causes alterations of consciousness.  Music causes alterations of consciousness.  Sex causes alterations of consciousness.  Religious ceremonies cause alterations of conscioussness (some of them anyway).  

    Anything that influences neurotransmitter alterations in various parts of the brain alters consciousness.  Nothing inherently bad about that.  It's what people choose to do with the alterations or to get them that's problematic, and the side-effects of chemicals people use to get them.  

    Parent

    and, (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:24:23 AM EST
    he hasn't yet factored in the savings from the reduced need for law enforcement, billions more per year.

    But (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:16:25 AM EST
    With the reduced law enforcement, won't you have to consider the economic impact of loss of jobs, higher unemployment payments, possible foreclosures and defaults by those who lose their jobs, etc.

    Gotta include everything in the package.

    Parent

    I doubt they would have to reduce (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:23:13 AM EST
    Police forces by much. There is plenty of real crime going on that is not being addressed while they chase the weed.

    Besides, the reaction of the cartels should we cut into their way of life will keep the police busy for awhile.

    Parent

    I'm not arguing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:31:13 AM EST
    That we shouldn't give up the ridiculous ban on marijuana, but there are folks who try to make the arguments that legalizing it will save the economy and get the big, bad, evil police to go away.

    And I don't buy his claim that there's never been a claim of a marijuana-only smoker getting lung cancer.  That's ludicrous - you are putting a foreign substance with chemicals into your lungs, and there's no damage?  Next this guy will be trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.

    Parent

    I understand that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:36:25 AM EST
    I'm just not sure the police depts would need to be reduced. In fact, jobs will be created in the manufacturing/distribution area :)

    I have no idea on the lung cancer, but the cancer causing agents in cigarettes are added to the tobacco to make them addictive. Which leads us to a new concern....if marijuana were to be made legal, would we make sure no processors would add any chemicals to it?


    Parent

    Not unless you regulate it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    If cannabis is legalized, the game will be on to create a cannabis product which is perceived as superior to the competition.  Making it faster acting and more potent is one way to do that.  It worked excellently for cigarettes.  It made them more addictive too.  That was a bonus for the tobacco companies.  

    Parent
    They already do this (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    Unless you grow it yourself you have no idea what is in your pot these days. My kids know I smoked in the '60's but they also know mine wasn't laced with strychnine or other dangerous 'enhancers'.
    If MJ was regulated we would at least be able to control the worst of it.

    Parent
    That's just the amateurs (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    Corporations have the facilities, the technology and the incentive (moneymoneymoney) to brand, market and enhance any product.  Cannabis would be broken down, analyzed and they'd figure out how to enhance delivery and uptake of the most active compounds.  If that means chemically treating the raw material or adding something to it, they'll do it.

    With genetic engineering, they can create a cannabis that has new chemicals in it.  That's resource intensive and takes time, so I'd expect them to use the cheaper and more expedient techniques first.

    Parent

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:43:04 AM EST
    ...why have they been so unsuccessful at it thus far?  All the $ (and the marketing efforts of a certain poster here) spent on Marinol have not yielded a product that even comes close to the real thing.  

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    a) they have their own anti-nausea drugs to sell, so why create a competitor?
    b) This is about creating not a product, but consumers.

    Parent
    I'll give you "a"... (none / 0) (#35)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:44:50 AM EST
    ...but the "b" doesn't compute.  

    Parent
    the future (none / 0) (#2)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:28:12 AM EST
    If "medical" is the question, then the future would be a pill or skin patch what delivers cannibinoids  well.  
    I guess that all this "medical" stuff really is a stalking horse for setting up the inhalation of pot, which is really the way to promote recreational highs.

    unless you are for alcohol prohibition (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:43:45 AM EST
    all your talk about stalking horses and recreational highs is nothing but empty rhetoric masking a prejudice.  and make no mistake, people who are prejudiced against pot are many, from all political stripes, sharing one thing: an utter lack of logic.  and if patches and pills worked as well as traditional delivery methods, wouldn't cigarette smoking be eliminated by now, what with patches and gums? Of course, but then there are things about addiction that go beyond the actual substance. the simple oral fixation of smoking is more powerful than most people would consider.

    Parent
    nicotine as medicine (none / 0) (#56)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:02:37 PM EST
    The fact is that nicotine helps organize the frontal lobe (thus, many with ADHD and schizophrenia smoke cigarettes).  So are you supporting cigarettes as medicine rather than other forms of nicotine?
    Why are you pro-legalization types so loath to admit that pot, like alcohol, cigarettes, hang gliding, etc, has real risks but that it should not be banned due to libertarian concerns.  On the other hand, many of the left types where I live want to ban CIGARETTE smoking in public.  How ironic is that?

    Parent
    I'm all for that. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:22:46 AM EST
    Standardized doses, standardized delivery systems - very neat and clean and clinical.  It minimizes mistakes as well.

    It won't fly with the traditionalists.

    Parent

    I beg to differ (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:18:37 AM EST
    A 'traditionalist' in a re-legalized cannabis schema  would probably be able to either grow their own or purchase raw product as well anything processed.

    But just like home vintners and brewers, they'd always be a minority, and thus no threat to an established 'processed' market. Most people would happily buy 'store-bought' any day, just as they do with tobacco and alcohol.

    Parent

    What do you have against... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:54:05 AM EST
    recreational highs diogenes?  I thought most everybody likes a recreational high...be it from reefer, alcohol, jogging/exercising, skydiving, hunting, gambling, religion...you name it.  The pursuit of happiness is what Jefferson called it.

    Parent
    Should the taxpayer be on the hook (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    from any abuse of any of those recreational highs?  If any of those recreational highs affect anyone else, do those effected have the right to stop those recreational highs?  

    Parent
    I don't follow... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    me getting high doesn't get you high or have any effect on you whatsoever.  

    I think what you're talking about is the when an addict steals to feed his addiction, or a drunk driver kills somebody...for that, we have laws against theft and reckless driving.  The cause of the criminal behavior is irrelevant to me...like what a thief or reckless driver ate for breakfast is irrelevant.  

    No...society does not have the right to prohibit anybody from putting anything in their body...period.  Society only has the right to prohibit behavior that directly harms others.

    Parent

    Sorry kdog (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    but that dog won't hunt. Since society does have to clean up the mess caused by alcoholism, nicotine, pot, etc., it does have the right to supervise and control the use of substances that lead to these problems.

    That it does a lousy job is another question.

    Parent

    Show me the mess I've made Jim.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    yeah, I'm slacking on raking up the leaves at the crib, but other than that, where is the mess?

    Parent
    Some true stories, (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    I think I've written about them here before...

    Back in the day I had a summer job at my local water company. The company had a whole parking lot full of vehicles and one guy, Bobby, maintained them.

    Bobby was a stooooner from the minute he woke up. Every single day.

    One day he worked on the brakes of the dump truck I was driving and when he finished I drove a few blocks and narrowly missed a very serious accident when my brakes went out.

    Turned out Bobby forgot to fill the brake fluid up when he finished the brake job. "Sorry man, I was f*cked up" was his explanation.

    A month or so later he worked on the carburetor and the next day when I started the engine after lunch the fuel line disconnected from the carb and pumped gas all over the exhaust headers which lit the gas and turned the fuel pump into a flame thrower and burned the truck to the ground.

    I was really bummed, my dessert was still in my lunch bag in the burned-up truck.

    Again, his 'apology' was, essentially, "I was f*cked up."

    I have more Bobby stories, and he has a bunch of his own. His Vietnam stories alone would make a good movie...

    Anyway, getting high can and does negatively affect others.

    Granted, I'm sure YOUR getting high doesn't, and probably my experiences with Bobby are far from the norm, and there are plenty of alcohol and other legal drug, etc, abusers out there who eff-up just as much as Bobby did or more, but, still, I could, literally, be dead now because of Bobby's pot smoking.

    And if I was, what would TL be w/o me? ;-)

    Parent

    Bobby definitely ain't the norm... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    I trust my fine stoner mechanic completely to do my brakes...and he works for the cost of parts and a post-work cypher...good guy!

    And I don't think marijuana was the problem really, the problem was Bobby.  How on earth did he keep that job after such massive f*ck-ups?

    Regardless...I'm sure glad you survived his piss-poor work, the place wouldn't be the same without ya:)

    Parent

    I wish I knew how you could make (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    such a blanket statement about what the norm is, kdog, but then, I have this feeling that what is normal to you, might not be normal to everyone.

    Actually, I usually find myself fascinated by the reasons you can always come up with for why drugs are so good, laws are so bad and life would be so much better if we could all just do whatever we wanted.  It puts me in mind of my kids - and every other kid in America, I'm sure - who would say, "When I grow up, I'm gonna do whatever I want and no one's gonna tell me what to do!"  I guess you meant it, huh?

    Are you sure you aren't Peter Pan?  :-)


    Parent

    I do have.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    a bit of a Peter Pan complex going Anne...ya got me there pal:) I did mean it and still do...I ain't "growin' up" int he traditional sense...to many of the traditional "grown-ups" I know are miserable:)

    But I do think I have my finger closer to the pulse of your average pot smoker than most here...these are my people after all Anne:)

    Parent

    A lot more harm is caused by people eating meat (none / 0) (#40)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    and potato chips.  Want to ban those?

    There is no realistic comparison between cannabis, alcohol and tobacco.  

    Parent

    If there is no comparison (none / 0) (#42)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    betixt alcohol and cannabis, why even have this thread?  You should tell SAFER Colorado Executive Director Mason Tvert that the comparison is not realistic.  

    Parent
    Eh? (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    They are comparable, but there is no equivalency in terms of harm caused.  Cannabis causes far less harm than alcohol or tobacco.

    Parent
    Totally agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    But define directly harms.  Does a drunk driver who gets into an accident, which causes insurance rates to rise directly harm someone else?  Does someone's tax money paying for treatment harm them?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    Ingesting chemicals into your body always poses a risk.  Marijuana smokers face the same (or higher, depending on length and frequency of use) risk as cigarette smokers for respiratory issues.  Marijuana has also been shown to have adverse affects on the reproductive system.

    Face it - you are putting a drug into your system - one that has enough chemicals to be mind altering.  OF COURSE it's dangerous.  It's ludicrous to think otherwise.

    Of course you miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    I think MJ should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.

    But those who run around touting that MJ should be legal because it doesn't hurt you are fools.  MJ IS dangerous, just as cigarettes, alcohol, and too much cough medicine are dangerous. It is a DRUG. It has been to show negative affects on the tongue, mouth, throat, lungs, nasal passagesliver, thryoid, and reproductive organs. Not to mention second hand smoke, which, unlike alcohol, DOES have a direct and immediate impact on other people.

    But thanks for putting words in my mouth and ignoring basic science.

    Parent

    Hysterical? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    Hardly - just not one to jump on the bandwagon and proclaim that MJ is safe and no harm will come to those who use it. Also notice you didn't address the second hand smoke issue, but I'm not surprised. Hysterical? That says more about you than me.

    Parent
    the biggest problem of cronic use (none / 0) (#55)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    of MJ is stupidity.  I grew up with some of the smartest people in the world who turned in to some of the dumbest until they stopped smoking pot.


    Parent
    Peter Tosh... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 08:07:22 AM EST
    was pretty smart...stupidity is just as prevalent amongst the straight-edge set.

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    Wrong.  Cannabis smokers do not face the same risks as cigarette smokers with equal use. And really no one smokes 20-40 joints a day so the comparison is pointless anyway.  Smoking anything isn't really a good idea, that's the point of vaporizing as mentioned in the summary.

    No adverse affects on the reproductive system in general either, with the possible exception of potentially lowering sperm count somewhat and affecting some aspects of hormonal balance in women.

    Nothing dangerous except possible distraction while attention should be focused on tasks like driving.  

    Chemicals?  Everything you put in your body is chemicals, whether solid, liquid or gas.  That's a straw man.

    Don't get high and drive.  Don't get high while you're pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or trying to impregnate.  Vaporize or ingest orally instead of smoke. It's not very complicated.

    It's only ludicrous to use tortured deduction to imply factual certainty.  Find the evidence if you are going to make such assertions, and don't stretch the evidence to fit conclusions that you want to reach.

    Parent

    Reply re: NIH post (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    Don't want to paste back in that whole NIH thing so will reply to myself.

    Relying on NIH studies in this instance is  problematic for a few reasons.  One, funding is only available to study deficits/potential harm, and is not balanced to study possible benefits.  Two, politics affect who/what is studied and how it is reported.  These problems with NIH funding and reporting are widely known among researchers. NIH was intended to be separate from politics but it certainly is not.

    Still...

    First, take any effects from smoking off the table - they're irrelevant to the thread here, which is focused on vaporizing. Even so, the evidence is mixed and speculative, as indicated in the post. At most, you see missing a day of work here or there and speculation about how pot might cause cancer, but not evidence that it does.

    Second, withdrawal symptoms are minor, short-lived (peak at 2-3 days) and it's a red herring to equate them with significant addiction - done for financial (get your funding for research/treatment/enforcement/incarceration), moralistic (drugs are bad and pot is a drug so it must be bad) or propagandistic (pretty much the entire history of pot becoming illegal in the US) reasons.  Quit having sex, quit running, quit anything you like and do regularly and you are likely to have irritability and craving, some distress/anxiety and sleeplessness. If you're a regular meat-eater, just quit that for a week, then report back on your experiences.

    Next, the associations with mental illness are only associations.  People get high to cope with anxiety, depression, etc., and the only evidence around schizophrenia is that people who are developing it may have first symptoms appear sooner or more flagrantly if they're also getting high.

    Racing heart is a physical effect, not damage or illness.

    Perceptual, mood and physical alterations are the reasons people get high.  Calling them distortions makes them sound bad.

    Don't get high when you need to think clearly, pay attention, have quick and reliable coordination or around pregnancy.  Again, it's pretty simple.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    Since many here rely on "studies" from NORML, or as in this case, Jeralyn posts what "Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation" has to say (obviously no bias from those groups!), I'll take results from the NIH over those groups anyday.

    Parent
    Bias abounds (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Realleft on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    in many directions. But NIH is not immune for sure.  Know the development of US drug laws and how they are intertwined with federal agencies to interpret NIH presentations of findings.  NIH presentations are certainly nothing like ONDCP, but they're still slanted and affected by federal policies/politics.  You can choose to take their results and summaries if you wish, but that's just a choice.  This is not an area where the US government has been responsible in disseminating accurate and unbiased information.  Cannabis knowledge discovery and information dissemination is influenced by cannabis politics, which is influenced by money, religion, racism and national politics.

    Parent
    I give up (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    You're right.  Pot is not bad for you at all.  We should all smoke it. You all obviously are smarter than everybody else.

    <snark>

    Parent

    Apparently, the NIH disagrees with you (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:30:37 PM EST

    How Does Marijuana Affect the Brain?

    Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body.

    THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the "high" that users experience when they smoke marijuana. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.1

    Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

    Research on the long-term effects of marijuana abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine.4 Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

    Addictive Potential
    Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2-3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.5

    Marijuana and Mental Health
    A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be a factor, where early use is a marker of vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence. Chronic marijuana use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses, including addiction, stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. At the present time, the strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders.6 High doses of marijuana can produce an acute psychotic reaction; in addition, use of the drug may trigger the onset or relapse of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals.

    What Other Adverse Effect Does Marijuana Have on Health?

    Effects on the Heart
    Marijuana increases heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.7 This may be due to the increased heart rate as well as effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

    Effects on the Lungs
    Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

    Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

    Effects on Daily Life
    Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.11 Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover.

    Revised 7/09



    Parent
    If you want to opt out (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    of society that works for me. Until then society has some responsibility for you. That means you get supervised to some degree.

    If pot is not addictive then all the users should be able to just say "no." Fact is they want that "special high" that pot gives so they risk their health, safety and freedom to get it.

    That I would legalize it and sell it along side tobacco and booze doesn't mean that I think any of them should be used.

    Parent

    not really (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:06:06 AM EST
    pot will make you less inhibited and more likely to make bad choices, just like booze will.
    The thing is, there are many people who will not use it because it is illegal.  And since it is a gateway to further use of illegal substances I am not sure legalizing it is going to have the desired effect.  Then there is just one more legal substances for people to use to make them stupid.

    Parent
    I don't buy that... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    I've yet to meet a soul who won't smoke because it is illegal...maybe because their job tests, maybe because they just don't care for it, but never just because it is illegal.

    It is so prevalent in my culture and community you forget its even illegal sometimes.

    Parent

    I always thought... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    alcohol use increased during prohibition, turns out its a commonly held myth.  Though binge drinking is believed to have increased, and dangerous drinking.

    Interesting wiki page here...that old bunkshooter Billy Sunday man...Upon passage of the 18th amendment he said...

    "The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs."

    Bunk!  

    Parent