Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

news.usc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#91

Post by seattle_spring »

venatiodecorus wrote: post #59
wonderwonder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, drugs can have a negative effect on people but I believe that this affect regarding marijuana use pales in comparison to the negative effect its continued prohibition causes. In the United States it is wielded as an oppressive tool with use "roughly equal among Blacks and whites, yet Blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession." Those arrested are then affected for the rest of the…

elon musk smoking weed with joe rogan is really just a slap in the face to every poor black kid in jail over pot

Hopefully you realize then that the solution is to stop punishing "poor black kids" for smoking weed, and not to throw Musk in prison.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#93

Post by fjabre »

klyrs wrote: post #49
fjabre wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course but I don't think there's any debate about which side has been subjected to more propaganda over the years. Regardless this furthers my argument - that there is not enough research because of said propaganda for any claims to be made in the first place which is the real travesty.

There's idiots on both sides, and peddling unsubstantiated rumors as medical fact doesn't somehow make up for anti-reefer madness. Rather, it legitimizes the fearmongering. I've seen dispensaries coming dangerously close to claiming it eradicates cancer. Heard activists encouraging driving under the influence because "it makes you chill out and take your time, man." There's no excuse for this shit.

> Heard activists encouraging driving under the influence because "it makes you chill out and take your time, man." There's no excuse for this shit.

Eh this doesn't bother me. You know how many people are on the roads dosed up on legal pain killers way worse and more sedating and addictive than weed?

My point was that idiots on one side are putting the idiots on the other side in jail.

Like I said I don't blame people for being defensive. I think it's clear which side is more in the wrong - the people fear mongering on the government's side.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#94

Post by gjs278 »

fpgaminer wrote: post #82
superkuh wrote: post #48

Worst of these claims are the (almost literal) "snake oil" companies and sellers that are selling 10mg of CBD to people as a 'dose' and implying or telling them it is anything other than placebo at this level. All professional journal studies that have made claims about CBD do studies that use at least 300mg and more often 600mg as the absolute minimum dose and repeat this daily for weeks. Unfortunately 600mg of CBD…

Unfortunately we don't have enough research to establish much of anything beyond the current FDA approved usage. However, that usage is 600mg/day for an average person (10mg/kg/day). So the claim of 600mg being the "absolute minimum dose" is absurd. Plenty of studies have occurred at levels as low as 25mg/day and shown effects. The quality of those studies isn't great, but there aren't any good quality studies on CBD…

you are falling for the placebo effect. it’s so obvious 1mg does not do anything.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#95

Post by gjs278 »

nyhc99 wrote: post #83
fjabre wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you blame them? Last time I checked ginger wasn't subjected to 70 years of war on drugs propaganda. Never heard of anyone thrown in jail for consuming ginger. Maybe people want to consume a drug without being labeled and stereotyped by people who say all drugs are bad and that getting high is a sin.

I have to agree with this. If exaggerating health claims about a plant is what it takes to convince the country that you shouldn't be thrown in prison for choosing to consume that plant, then have at it. The older generations will find it much harder to vote against legalization while they're rubbing CBD cream on their aching joints. If that's the trade-off, it's a good deal.

the cream will do nothing

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#96

Post by wonderwonder »

seattle_spring wrote: post #91
venatiodecorus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

elon musk smoking weed with joe rogan is really just a slap in the face to every poor black kid in jail over pot

Hopefully you realize then that the solution is to stop punishing "poor black kids" for smoking weed, and not to throw Musk in prison.

I believe that's what OP is saying, That neither party should be in prison for a crime that is just a crime for some people in some places and legal in others.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#97

Post by IgorPartola »

drummer wrote: post #87
IgorPartola wrote: post #62

Well yeah. So long as the federal government keeps classifying cannabis as a tier 1 controlled substance (cocaine is tier 2), no research money will flow to academics to do the relevant research. In the meantime, we will continue seeing claims like RSO curing all cancers and other diseases ( http://www.trueactivist.com/this-is-the-cannabis-oil-recipe-... ). Being able to research effects of cannabis is reason number…

The main component of RSO actually has been studied and proven to kill cancer. You need RSO with very high THC concentration. https://youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U

What kind of cancer? That’s like saying “RSO cures illness”. Fire cures cancer too I’d you apply it directly to just the cancer cells, but we can agree that setting a can we patient on fire isn’t exactly a worthwhile therapy. Also any actual sources aside from KillYourCancer.org? I am not saying RSO doesn’t work. Just that it has not been proven or disproven by anyone reputable.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#98

Post by Rescis »

superkuh wrote: post #48

Worst of these claims are the (almost literal) "snake oil" companies and sellers that are selling 10mg of CBD to people as a 'dose' and implying or telling them it is anything other than placebo at this level. All professional journal studies that have made claims about CBD do studies that use at least 300mg and more often 600mg as the absolute minimum dose and repeat this daily for weeks. Unfortunately 600mg of CBD…

My experience is mostly with epilepsy, but CBD at dosages of 25-100mg (varying on the intensity of the siezure) really does help better then any prescribed medication my partner has tried. It's not ridiculous to me that it's effect on other systems in your body we don't know much about could be significant.

I do agree though, regularily using 500-1000mg's a week gets expensive.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#99

Post by CoolGuySteve »

fiblye wrote: post #27
JaumeGreen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots of pro-cannabis and pro-LSD comments everywhere. My cynical view is that the "power" wants us all sedated, and it's investing its media to promote the "new" batch of drugs to get another generation hooked up. I do think that there are probably quite beneficial uses of drugs, but probably not in a ludic way as most people prefer to use them.

I think at least with regards to HN, it's that the average user is, just being honest, wealthy and from a very privileged background without too much lifetime difficulty. There's a disproportionate number of people here who can and did walk into Silicon Valley and said something along the lines of "give me 10 million dollars and I'll make a phone app", then have the free time and comfortable fall back to write a fail…

Just because the people making the argument come from privileged backgrounds doesn't invalidate the argument itself.

I came from Canada where drug offenses of all kinds are penalized much less harshly than the US. Even in cases of addiction, the social safety net to deal with it is much better: free hospital stays, free counseling, cheap college, better employment insurance, etc.

Effectively, everyone in Ontario can be considered as privileged as the people in your example in terms of leeway given even though I've never been given 10 million dollars for a phone app. We made that decision as a society and since I left the government has started selling marijuana: www.ocs.ca

So when talking about lives being ruined, we have to start asking if the cure of prohibition is worse than the disease of addiction.

Re: Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study

#100

Post by fpgaminer »

markdown wrote: post #89
fpgaminer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately we don't have enough research to establish much of anything beyond the current FDA approved usage. However, that usage is 600mg/day for an average person (10mg/kg/day). So the claim of 600mg being the "absolute minimum dose" is absurd. Plenty of studies have occurred at levels as low as 25mg/day and shown effects. The quality of those studies isn't great, but there aren't any good quality studies on CBD…

> I can feel as little as 1mg (I'm hypersensitive to the stuff). What gives you the confidence that this isn't the placebo affect at work?

Nothing with any scientific rigor. Of course I, like I'm sure everyone else, believe I have a decent "placebo detector" and to that end CBD isn't behaving like a placebo for me.

But I'll try to add a little more strength to my claim for CBD not being a placebo at the original comment's supposed "low doses".

I've used it in balm form to treat physical pain. I use it at ~50mg topical doses (again much lower than 600mg) to treat carpal tunnel, TMJ, tweaked back, etc. It's been many times more effective for me in that regard than anything else I've tried previously, which includes placebos. I've tried everything from "real" treatments like NSAIDs and menthol rubs, to Chinese "medicines", to snake oil off Amazon. Nothing has worked as well as the CBD balm. So if CBD is a placebo at these doses then it's the best placebo I've ever found.

I had no reason to believe that CBD would be any more effective than my previous snake oil attempts, and indeed I had every expectation that it would be snake oil because of the many comments on HN saying as much.

Besides that we know THC, a related cannabinoid, is effective at these doses (e.g. 5mg). Why wouldn't CBD be? Most drugs that interact with the CNS are active on a wide spectrum, and in fact have different overall effects based on dose. Even in extremely low doses, for example LSD micro-dosing which we've seen a few studies reporting as effective. Is CBD the one special one that cures epilepsy at 600mg but nothing else at any other dosing?

So my general argument is that, though we lack concrete evidence, everything else from related chemicals to anecdotes to weak studies points in the direction of CBD being effective at doses as low as 15mg. So, why would we assume that 600mg is somehow an absolute minimum? And why would we assume that my claim of being able to detect the application of 1mg is entirely placebo? None of this precludes the absolute necessity of rigorous scientific study and deferring to said studies when possible. But I see absolutely no basis for claiming that anything less than 600mg dosing is bunk.

EDIT: I'll add the addendum that most of my CBD usage is "full-spectrum", which highly conflates my personal anecdotes. That doesn't negate any of my other arguments, though. In fact I think all the "weak" studies that we have on CBD are done with pure CBD. I do have CBD isolate that I've tried a few times. I can feel that at low doses as well, but I've never assessed it for pain relief or anxiety so I can't personally make any arguments for or against pure-CBD. Sibling comments suggest that it has effects at low doses though, just like all the weak studies show.

Post reply on HN