
Health Effects of Marijuana and Cannabis-Derived Products - mudil
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24625&_ga=1.232139931.524626704.1484279064
======
ImTalking
> The evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that with greater frequency
> of cannabis use, there is an increased likelihood of developing problem
> cannabis use.

So they are saying that if you smoke more, then you could possibly smoke more.

------
banku_brougham
I was expecting to see a lot more bad news in the report, surprisingly mild
adverse effects in general, especially conpared to smoking, alcohol,
overeating, etc.

~~~
ImTalking
Something anecdotally we have all known for decades.

------
soyiuz
It would be interesting to see the discussed effects in comparison with the
effects of let's say increased sugar consumption for example.

~~~
rabboRubble
Some time ago, a study was done to investigate basically the effect of the
munchies on blood sugars. The study was years ago IIRC. Ironically, the MJ
smoking (or was it eating?) crowd had better controlled blood sugars. The
suggestion was that something about the MJ controlled sugar spikes making the
users less prone to the diabetes.

I'll try to find the study.

Edit: Here's reference to the study I recalled...
[http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/marijuana-the-next-
dia...](http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/marijuana-the-next-diabetes-
drug/)

~~~
tinix
Just wanted to jump in here and say I remember that study, specifically...

I found it here, for ya, along w/ an editorial of the study.

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002)

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.003)

------
ImTalking
Although I don't know, I would assume that some of the 10,000 scientific
abstracts reviewed were funded by NIDA, which does not fund any study on
cannabis that does not show harm.

~~~
snovv_crash
So are you saying that they retract funding if the study shows harm? Because
funding needs to be given before the conclusions of the study are available.

~~~
dekhn
Grants like this are basically negotiated, between the PI (principle
investigator, who carries out the work) and the PM (program manager who
provides the funding). They already know each other and talk about what kind
of research is going to be done. I've tracked NIDA-funded MJ studies for at
least a decade, and it's pretty clear they're vetting for scientists who
publish conclusions consistent with the mission of their agency.

I'm sure a sufficiently motivated scientist could get funding, publish
something that disproved the NIDA (it's not hard), and then they would
probably not get their funding renewed; it's basically career suicide unless
you have other sources of funding.

------
sean_patel
Direct link to download the full 395 Page Report (without paying $78)

The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence
and Recommendations for Research =>
[https://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=24625](https://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=24625)

~~~
WalterSear
Didn't work for me.

------
andrewstuart
Why is tobacco demonized and marijuana commercialized?

~~~
corndoge
Because mass produced tobacco products are conclusively correlated with an
increased risk of developing cancers and cannabis is not.

~~~
posterboy
surely is, too

~~~
dekhn
the report stated pretty definitively there is no evidence showing that MJ
leads to lung cancer, or other cancers in a statistically significant way,
with the exception of a single type of prostate cancer which is easily cured.

