So, despite our disagreements over what constitutes substantial harm, I'd still say Valg seems like the most qualified scientist Cf'er I can think of.

I'm curious, having read through a discussion on Dio's about the long term harm of marijuana use. I actually don't smoke pot more than maybe once every 2 years, but I would like to see the 'scientific' viewpoint of the validity of Heath's study and other subsequent studies and what the general scientific consensus of the topic is.

Looking to clear the fog, metaphorically speaking.

Anywho, sound off.

1) I'll have to take a rain check on a more detailed response-- I can't check most journals for reviews from home, and I won't be in my office again until next Friday on account of business travel. I'm speaking off the cuff.

2) My general impression is that there isn't a complete consensus, largely because the government simply doesn't allow most studies which would give the most useful data on humans. The fact that you aren't even allowed to effectively ask the question has definitely ruffled feathers in the scientific community, and I recall reading some angry editorials to that effect in either Science or Nature.

3) Animal models are less useful here. It's relatively easy to pump rats/etc. full of tobacco smoke and count tumors. Quantifying neurological effects involves a lot more indirect interpretation, and generally speaking you'll need a lot more experimentation to come to firm answers. (Which leads us back to #2.)

3B) Obviously, a lot of humans are experimenting with the drug, but they're experimenting with material that is produced in smaller batches and is of highly uneven composition, dosage, etc. Plus, it's not simple to set up trials where you interview pot smokers because of the fear of legal repercussions.

4) In terms of respiratory problems, it's similar to smoking similar amounts of tobacco-- inhaled burning plant being more or less equal to inhaled burning plant. Obviously, pot smokers tend to smoke much smaller quantities in terms of mass, so the effects aren't quite as bad as you'd typically see with tobacco, but only because of dosage. I think even a lot of the pro-pot crowd admits the drug would probably be safer if other deliveries were tested, as smoking marijuana is definitely linked to respiratory illnesses.

5) I've never seen a reputable source claim it was harmless to the brain, but the pertinent unknown is how it stacks up against legal drugs, notably alcohol and tobacco, but also way-too-commonly-prescribed stuff like Ritalin and Prozac. (Some people claim pot is kept illegal in part because Big Pharma dreads more competition, but it's clear to me that they'd make a lot more money if marijuana was legal and they could make it.) It's an anomaly that your doctor can't prescribe smoked marijuana for medical purposes, given that they have more potent things with more potent side effects in their cabinet (opiates, etc.). Ironically, the best justification for this is that the drug's full medical effects aren't completely understood... because it's too hard to legally do formal trials... which leads us back to #2.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Interesting. Yeah, that's specifically what I mean, the neurological effects. The respiratory effects are obvious. You bring up a good point that what humans typically smoke isn't sourced 'purely'. I don't think its illegal because of the pharmaceuticals, but more likely because of social stigma as well as a lot of hurt feelings over losing 'the War on Drugs'.

#2 would piss me off as well.

Sorry, I'm not Valg.

But what's there to say?

(In the spirit of getting the proverbial ball rolling..)

Physically, it's harmful smoke, we all know that. Some people say worse than cigarettes, but I'd say not. Simply because of the frequency you can inhale marijuana versus a three pack of cigarette day. But still bad. No one would argue that.

Mentally/Sociologically?

I've taken some psychology classes which have cited examples stating that for people who smoke on a daily basis suffer (enjoy?) the effects of being stunted, socially, more or less at the point when they began regularly using. Meaning, the kid who starts using at thirteen will be somewhat "frozen" at a thriteen year old social level while he/she continues to be a smoker. I'd agree somewhat. Though, some people tend to avoid this, somehow, and others, embody the phenomena utterly and completely. I wonder why.

And judging strictly by some of the "other board's" threads, I'd agree. Not that there's anything *wrong* with that.

That's why I started smoking marijuana when I was twenty three. I want to remain there.

"Stay gold, pony boy, stay gold"
-- Outsiders.

Discuss.

>Sorry, I'm not Valg.
>
>But what's there to say?
>
> In the spirit of getting the proverbial ball rolling..)
>
>Physically, it's harmful smoke, we all know that. Some people
>say worse than cigarettes, but I'd say not. Simply because of
>the frequency you can inhale marijuana versus a three pack of
>cigarette day. But still bad. No one would argue that.

Yeah, no one's arguing that. This falls into the realm of smoking cigarettes, cloves, crack, whatever. Smoking anything habitually isn't a great idea for your lungs, with exception perhaps to cigars which are a greater threat to mouth cancer if I recall right, providing you don't inhale. Even then, you inhale some, so its probably not great.

>Mentally/Sociologically?
>
>I've taken some psychology classes which have cited examples
>stating that for people who smoke on a daily basis suffer
> enjoy?) the effects of being stunted, socially, more or less
>at the point when they began regularly using. Meaning, the kid
>who starts using at thirteen will be somewhat "frozen" at a
>thriteen year old social level while he/she continues to be a
>smoker. I'd agree somewhat. Though, some people tend to avoid
>this, somehow, and others, embody the phenomena utterly and
>completely. I wonder why.

Yeah, but similiarly speaking, I know plenty of non-burned potheads. That's the million dollar question - does smoking pot regularly make you stupid. I think much of it is social behavior of people in that clique. Consider the 'Long-Island-ditz' syndrome, or rather 'Valley-girl syndrome'. I'm not sure what the effects on your brain actually are, but I'm not convinced it makes you dumb at least, not on the level that alcohol consumption does.

That being said, I don't know. Hence posing the question.

>
>And judging strictly by some of the "other board's" threads,
>I'd agree. Not that there's anything *wrong* with that.
>
>That's why I started smoking marijuana when I was twenty
>three. I want to remain there.

Heh. I don't smoke pot often. I've smoked it before, but its not something I do more than once every couple of years (I've gotten high probably like 6 times in my life).

Still, I find there's a lot of pre-conceptions which I'm not sure are justified by scientific data.

>"Stay gold, pony boy, stay gold"
>-- Outsiders.
>
>Discuss.