
Is Marijuana as Safe as We Think? - gringoDan
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/14/is-marijuana-as-safe-as-we-think
======
gwbas1c
The biggest difficulty with marijuana is that we don't really know what's in
it. For years we only thought that THC is the active ingredient, and then in
the last decade we've found out that CBD is also an active ingredient. We
discus "cannaboids," but we (the lay people) don't really know what they are,
nor are they labeled.

(In CA, when I go to the pot shop, TCH and CBD percentages are labeled, and
strain is sometimes labeled, but nothing else is.)

The thing that a lot of non-marijuana consumers don't realize is that the
effects vary considerably from strain to strain. (It would be as if different
brands of beer had different kinds of buzzes.) This most likely is because the
cannaboids vary as from strain to strain, but we don't know what they are, and
don't label them. The best we can do is try to stick with known strains that
we like.

To be quite honest, (and to keep with the point of the article,) some strains
are like coffee. They just make me feel a little different. Other strains
really do put weird thoughts and paranoia into my head. Some strains make me
very introverted. Could long-term heavy use of strains with certain cannaboids
trigger behavior similar to mental illness? We don't even know what the
cannaboids are to study!

~~~
maceurt
Also, marijuana effect on the human body and its chemical composition changes
based on if it is eaten or smoked. Eating edibles, pot brownies, etc. often
times have account for a lot of the hallucinogenic experiences that are a lot
more pronounced than just smoking it for example.

------
puzzledobserver
The article points out that medical research on cannabis is inconclusive and
insufficient. But it fails to mention that one of the main reasons for this
unfortunate state of affairs is the political paranoia and subsequent legal
difficulties involved in conducting cannabis research [1, 2, 3].

[1] Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research. Committee on the
health effects of marijuana: An evidence review and research agenda. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/)

[2] Why Is it So Hard to Study Pot? Rolling Stone.
[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/why-
is...](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/why-is-it-so-
hard-to-study-pot-124767/)

[3] Medical cannabis research. Wikipedia.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_research#Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_research#United_States)

~~~
xbryanx
Those are good sources and I agree with the sentiment, but it does mention
this:

"With marijuana, apparently, we’re still waiting for this information. It’s
hard to study a substance that until very recently has been almost universally
illegal."

~~~
puzzledobserver
Oops, missed that sentence: my bad!

------
lewisflude
Anecdotally I've seen multiple friend's mental health deteriorate while
smoking weed consistently. In more than one case, they had a history of mental
illness in the family.

This could just be a correlation.

~~~
tabs_masterrace
I'm no expert, but I think weed definitely promotes psychotic thoughts. More
so, the stronger the THC content, and the longer and frequent the use of it.
In very rare cases this can trigger Psychosis, but in most people it will not.

Rather what you tend see in daily smokers is a attitude of mild delusional
distrust, often leaning towards conspiracy theories, anti-authoritarianism,
etc. Since many are not aware of any unreasonable thought patterns, it may be
seen as a mild form of psychosis. It goes away only 1-3 days after stopping
consuming it though.

But I think it's worth keeping an eye on, in this day and age, we really don't
need more people following misguided errands.

~~~
plmu
Once you know that, you can resist these thoughts. The first few times I used
it, it seemed like learning to drive a bycicle as a small kid for the first
time. Once you learn how not too fall, it becomes trivial.

If it were legal, like alcohol, people would better be able to deal with it.

Even if not 100% harmless, prohibition is not helpful, for (almost) noone.

------
esahione
Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe?

Breathing is not safe either. Living on earth as well; small rocks from
outerspace have created mass extinctions over and over.

The universe isn't safe and I don't want to be safe; I want to be happy. You
know what doesn't make me happy? The possibility of going to jail over
something that hurts nobody.

So take your safe space and put it in that spot in your mind that is labeled
"wishful thinking".

Edit: Note that anyone that is trying to argue the point of the article with
me is missing out the point: it doesn't matter if it is safe or not, it is my
choice to do it. Just like it would be my choice to take my own life away. Or
to get an abortion (if I was a woman). It is not up to _you_ , government, or
society to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body and whether I
should feel bad about it or not.

So yeah, while you can argue whether it is safe or not, it doesn't really
matter. Going to jail is definitely less safe than smoking pot.

~~~
cirgue
> Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe?

Yeah, it does. It matters a hell of a lot that alcohol isn't safe, and there
are a whole bunch of very well-known problems associated with using it
regularly. Same for most medications. Many aren't super safe, and there is a
fair bit of research and information dissemination required to make sure
doctors and patients know the costs and benefits. When we fail at doing that,
it causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. You should be able to make your
own call, and that means knowing.

The really creepy thing about this conversation is that there is a shitload of
money to be made by concealing the hazards of marijuana use, just as there is
for alcohol and cigarettes.

~~~
josefresco
> shitload of money to be made by concealing the hazards of marijuana us

You forget that there's been almost a century of lying about the "hazards" of
"marijuana" while simultaneously concealing the hazards of other "legal"
substances to protect corporate profits and throw people of color in jail.

~~~
lujer78
You lost me at the racist bs.

~~~
throwaway2016a
I hate to jump into this topic and I'll try not to take sides but...

There is actually pretty strong evidence that is actually was to put people of
color in jail (at least initially).

At the very least enough plausible evidence to show that throwing around "bs"
like that might be misguided.

[https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-
all/](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/)

> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two
> enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
> We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black,
> but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks
> with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those
> communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their
> meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
> we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

~~~
josefresco
You beat me to the quote! Thanks for contributing. Let's also not forget the
name itself "marijuana" was chosen to stoke racist fears of Mexicans and
African Americans.

------
pjc50
Probably not, but is prohibition safe? Are armed police safe? Is paracetamol
safe? Could this be perhaps an issue where a sense of proportion and balance
of harms is appropriate?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _but is prohibition safe?_

The article isn’t advocating a return to prohibition. It just asks us to
confront widely-held assumptions about the drug.

It prompts questions. (With flourish.) Should marijuana be taxed and
restricted, in its marketing, like tobacco? Currently, it’s headed towards
being treated more like alcohol.

~~~
kevinmchugh
Alcohol is taxed and restricted in marketing. While beer is still advertised
on TV, you won't see someone holding an open bottle or drinking from it.
That's illegal.

------
honkycat
No matter how harmful Marijuana is, prohibition is even worse.

I recently moved to a state that has legal weed. I was pulled over yesterday
and the amount of FEAR I felt when the cop got out of the car was intense. I
spent years being harassed by cops who would "smell marajuana."

And then it clicked in my head: I don't have to be afraid. Weed is legal. They
can't use that excuse anymore.

------
EamonnMR
I wonder if that illustration's concentric-shape-shifting style is 'in' right
now due to the Collapse EP release a couple of months back. Compare:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(EP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_\(EP\))

Also similar and popular, but without changing shape as the concentric shapes
move out:

[https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Black-
Mirror-...](https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Black-Mirror-
Bandersnatch-1.jpg)

------
minikites
[https://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/25833504237](https://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/25833504237)

>Nobody half-understands a topic as lucidly as Malcolm Gladwell. Unless he's
found one case study claiming the contrary.

[https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/big-data-vs-
big-...](https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/big-data-vs-big-
hair.html)

>And now, finally, just for fun, we have the Coup de Gladwell:

>“I think millennials are very trusting,” Gladwell said. “And when they say
they’re not...they’re bullshitting.”

>And there you have it, folks. Who needs data when you have Gladwellian
Pronouncements. The future is not the era of Big Data...it is the era of Big
Gladwell.

I don't trust Malcolm Gladwell to fully understand a topic, much less explain
it to the public. This particular article is also suspicious because he's been
pro-tobacco for decades: [https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-
gladwell-2/](https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/)

------
kentrado
An article riddle with questions and no answers. Yet, it feels as though the
author wants us to be cautious about this mysterious substance we know nothing
about.

We might not know everything, but we do know a couple of things. For example,
we know that nobody has died from cannabis overdose in the history of
humanity. That, at least is something worthy of mention.

------
Zigurd
If cannabis displaces alcohol in recreational drug use, it is hard to see that
being a bad trade-off, even in all but the rarest individual cases.

There is also a massive amount of quack medicine out there "treating" cannabis
users because that's the alternative to going to prison. Those quacks are not
going to give up their gravy train without a fight.

Overall the article is disappointing especially coming from Gladwell who I
expect would delve into Drug War quackery and scientific fraud. He points out
that cannabis is unstudied, and then goes on to the scary anecdotes.

His omission of the harm reduction aspect of cannabis is highlighted by his
use of non-cigarette nicotine products as an example of hard reduction that is
sometimes the object of moral panic.

There's no sense of perspective. Are we looking at a hidden public health
crisis or a "D&D is harmful to some people" level of concern?

------
weeksie
I think we should be doing a ton of research on the health implications of
marijuana use. However, I don't think that should affect legality other than,
perhaps, regulations on distribution. Legalization didn't happen on the back
of "no long term health problems" it happened because throwing people in jail
for a relatively non-addictive substance is unjust and eventually people had
enough of it.

But the question does seem a bit silly. Like, yeah it's probably not totally
salubrious to get blazed every day. No need to clutch pearls. It's also not
healthy to get drunk every day or eat tubs of ice cream constantly but we feel
as a society that the freedom to do those things is worth some of us
overindulging and hurting ourselves.

------
wkearney99
The tragedy here is the medicinal benefits of the non-psychoactive portions
haven't been getting effective research. Anecdotal evidence shows great
potential there.

But meanwhile the dur-hurr, let's all get stoned crowd is pretending today's
20%+ THC weed is the same as what we might have enjoyed decades ago. It isn't
and THAT is perhaps even less studied.

Criminalizing it to the extent that's happened is a whole other train-wreck.

So, yeah, bring on more testing and actual scientific study of it.

Stop trying to deflect the argument because it might actually reveal problems.
There are problems. Let's have a better understanding of them AS we move
forward.

------
onemoresoop
While I'm for decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, I think jumping
into an industry will create lots of problems and we'll find out about in the
future. Whoever is skeptical will be best off IMHO.

------
nickles
"We don’t worry that e-cigarettes increase the number of fatal car accidents,
diminish motivation and cognition, or impair academic achievement. The drugs
through the gateway that we worry about with e-cigarettes are Marlboros, not
opioids."

The casual manner in which Gladwell dismisses the danger of tobacco is
jarring. Each year, tobacco is responsible for at least five times as many
deaths as opioids are in the United States (480k vs 70-90k) [0][1]. Globally,
tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year [2]. Although Gladwell has
dismissed claims that he has shilled for the tobacco industry [3][4], his
trivialization of the dangers of tobacco do not support that position.

Nevertheless, that does not undermine the argument that caution should be
exercised with THC and other cannabinoids. It was prohibitively difficult in
the past to do research on the compounds [5], so we should exercise humility
when making definitive claims about them without further investigation.

[0]
[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm)

[1] [https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/o...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/overdose-death-rates)

[2] [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/tobacco](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/tobacco)

[3] [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/malcolm-
gladwell-s...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/malcolm-gladwell-
smoking_n_7757624.html)

[4] [https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-
gladwell-2/](https://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/)

[5] [https://www.newsweek.com/why-its-hard-do-marijuana-
research-...](https://www.newsweek.com/why-its-hard-do-marijuana-
research-69753)

------
threadify
Marijuana is a soft drug like caffeine. For some people, caffeine is not a
safe drug because they become addicted and have heart palpitations and lower
quality of sleep. Marijuana is not safe in that it disrupts brain development
in adolescents, exasperates psychosis with those who have mental health issues
like schizophrenia, and lowers IQ with heavy daily usage. Moderation is key.

~~~
fernandotakai
caffeine can also trigger anxiety[0]. i only know because that was happening
to me -- i had constant anxiety attacks early in the morning, after my morning
coffee. only after i stopped i realize how detrimental caffeine became to me.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine-
induced_anxiety_disor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine-
induced_anxiety_disorder)

------
notus
No it isn't and people seem to have this misconception that you cannot be
addicted to marijuana or that people who do are of weak character which
prevents them from seeking help. It is nowhere near as destructive as some
drugs including alcohol, but there are psychological problems that come along
with habitual use depending on how much that need to be studied and addressed.

~~~
honkycat
> No it isn't and people seem to have this misconception that you cannot be
> addicted to marijuana

Who claims this? This is just obviously false. Weather there is a physical
addiction has yet to be studied, but there is def a possibility of
psychological addiction.

> It is nowhere near as destructive as some drugs including alcohol, but there
> are psychological problems that come along with habitual use depending on
> how much that need to be studied and addressed.

What psychological problems? Where is your proof?

------
dr_orpheus
I feel like the title of this article is a little misleading. It discusses a
lot about the uncertain studies and potential dangers. However, it doesn't
really talk about what people's conceptions of marijuana currently are.

------
klyrs
tbh I only read the first several paragraphs... the medical community is
completely ignorant about weed and its effects. Well no shit. Marijuana
prohibition was a political, racially motivated decision. The American
government decreed "no medical benefit" and forbade studies except for those
that had a negative hypothesis, and strong-armed the rest of the world to
follow suit. So the medical community is decades behind and the drug is a
total mystery. This isn't remotely news. Now that science won't be censored in
places such as Canada, we might learn something useful

------
Spooky23
We don't know, because it's illegal to research it.

~~~
hprotagonist
that’s untrue.

what is true is that the one lab authorized to grow weed for federally funded
research grows mids that are unrepresentative of commercially available
medical and recreational weed.

~~~
Johnny555
Aren't you agreeing? If the only way you can legally study marijuana is to use
strains that are unrepresentative of commercially available medical and
recreational weed, then isn't that pretty much the same as saying it can't be
studied?

That seems kind of like the government saying that wine consumption can only
be studied using samples of vodka produced by one lab since the active
ingredient is the same.

------
gdpgreg
Well, give it a couple years for Canada to figure it out.

~~~
droussel
I think we can look to Portugal for a good example of what a change in policy
can do:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal)

As for Canada, I would say that whoever wanted to consume marijuana was
already doing so long before legalization was passed.

------
random_upvoter
When marijuana becomes legal, hiring tons of bio-engineers to improve your
product also becomes legal. What if BigCorp(tm) manages to engineer marijuana
so it becomes twice as addictive as it is now?

~~~
wkearney99
IF they decide?

You'd be pretty foolish to think anything BUT that would happen. At least not
without a framework of understanding, testing and regulation that limited it.

