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

Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 208 posts

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#121

Post by jgrowl »

benologist wrote: post #71
cnp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of the zillions and zillions of weed smokers over the past 100 years, there has never once been a reported case of someone dying due to carcinogenic responses to the smoke. Granted, there has never been a formal study, but there have been adjacent studies and by all intents and purposes it appears to be safe. Google around: https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+lung+cancer

Today we have have vastly stronger, concentrated wax/oil that can be up to 99+% THC enabling much faster and bigger consumption. Weed consumption and delivery will continue to be refined, a fatal dose is "impossible" only until it is not.

The thing is though that with something like opium, making heroin is more potent but provides an even better feeling.

With THC, you'll be more likely to reach a threshold of total discomfort and/or unconsciousness before you reach the fatal dose.

It's self correcting like Mushrooms. You can take an insane amount, but there is a good chance you'll be transported to the center of hell for several hours and never ever want to go back.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#122

Post by makmanalp »

Look, I'm all for legalization and all that, but the study measures the ratio between toxic dose and typical intake. We knew this already, I thought. This isn't the be all end all because you can get harmful effects without reaching toxic levels. You can get lung cancer from smoking. You can have psychiatric issues arise etc. etc.

This is a very narrow study which shows a promising result but it's not saying "marijuana is completely safe now".

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#123

Post by anigbrowl »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #64
DanBC wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. We know that cannabis smoke contains a bunch of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke. But tobacco smokers smoke a lot more than cannabis smokers; and you don't have to smoke cannabis.

Do we really know that? I mean, it stands to reason that combustion produces carcinogens, but cannabis is not tobacco. I think this is one of the basic assertions that must be validated by quantitative analysis.

Cannabis is thought to have an anti-carcinogenic effect, which is neat, but you'd still be at risk for emphysema and other kinds of lung diseases just from the physical impact of the smoke. Edible cannabis seems a lot safer in that respect but of course it's harder to gauge the dose, it's longer-lasting due to the different metabolic pathway, and it doesn't have the instant gratification of smoking. On the up side you won't have to worry about toting an oxygen cylinder around.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#124

Post by cnp »

benologist wrote: post #106
cnp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consuming anything with a sort of deadly, self-destructive intent can lead to death, one way or another. But I'm sorry, if you're going for an LD50 experience with weed, you're not going to get there --ever. Its just not possible unless you've created a medical experiment designed to kill the subject, and to get to that place I'm quite certain additional drugs would be required. Another fruitful Google search: https:…

Innovators and inventors are being empowered by new and changing laws. Someone will invent something more potent than vaporizers until it too is replaced by something more potent. The only reason it hasn't already happened to weed is laws inhibited serious efforts and it came in a naturally consumable form that was good enough.

Not to sound like an ass (seriously, excuse me), but you apparently are not familiar with the effects of marijuana on the body and do not understand what you're talking about. You cannot get to that place, period. One super high dose of hash oil would knock you completely out, and we all know the story of that poor soul who ate the dense weed brownie unknowingly. You cannot just keep consuming THC in a recreational way that would kill you directly.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#125

Post by DanBC »

techpeace wrote: post #101
DanBC wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. We know that cannabis smoke contains a bunch of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke. But tobacco smokers smoke a lot more than cannabis smokers; and you don't have to smoke cannabis.

Could you reference a study that makes that claim? I've never heard that before.

There are a couple listed here; some are from pro-cannabis campaigners.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question...

Erowid has a nice chart. See benzene. https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml

The british pro-drug site has a summary of some research: http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php

This UK National health service "behind the headlines" report looks at one study and how it was reported. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-healt...

> The report says that the constituents of cannabis smoke are similar to those of tobacco smoke apart from the presence of THC (which is only in cannabis) or nicotine (which is only in tobacco). This means that cannabis smoke has the same carcinogens (substances that cause cancer) as tobacco smoke, although concentrations of these may be up to 50% higher. Like tobacco, cannabis also contains toxic carbon monoxide.

> It also points out that although people generally smoke cannabis less often than tobacco cigarettes, the way they inhale means the amount of smoke reaching the lungs is greater. The respiratory tract and the rest of the body may also retain far more of the products of cannabis smoke than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. Given the similarities in their constituents, there is concern that regularly smoking cannabis could have similar health risks as regular tobacco smoking, says the BLF.

> Also, people often mix cannabis with tobacco. There is strong evidence that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and chronic lung disease. This makes it difficult to isolate whether health problems are specifically caused by cannabis or tobacco, says the report.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#126

Post by slouch »

gonehome wrote: post #49
madaxe_again wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on the whole driving bit - but commensurately, whenever I'm in the US, I am astonished by how casually people drink and drive. Don't think it's a stoner problem, more an inconsiderate dickhead/cultural problem.

I think there are a couple of things with this. The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally). The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass tran…

> For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7.

If you were to test his blood. Breathalyzers work differently and this guy would not pass one.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#127

Post by spacemanmatt »

DanBC wrote: post #102
spacemanmatt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really know that? I mean, it stands to reason that combustion produces carcinogens, but cannabis is not tobacco. I think this is one of the basic assertions that must be validated by quantitative analysis.

You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke. Do you really believe that? Obviously they have. Here's an easy read summary. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... The interesting one is: > Dale Gieringer, PhD, State Coordinator of the California National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), stated in his 2004 article "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Deliver…

> You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke.

That's your interpretation, but it's not my assertion.

I've long wondered where the measurable health impact of marijuana smokers is. At the rates Americans consume it, shouldn't we be able to measure it the way we measure effects of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that more opportunity lost to prohibition?

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#128

Post by benologist »

cnp wrote: post #124
benologist wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innovators and inventors are being empowered by new and changing laws. Someone will invent something more potent than vaporizers until it too is replaced by something more potent. The only reason it hasn't already happened to weed is laws inhibited serious efforts and it came in a naturally consumable form that was good enough.

Not to sound like an ass (seriously, excuse me), but you apparently are not familiar with the effects of marijuana on the body and do not understand what you're talking about. You cannot get to that place, period . One super high dose of hash oil would knock you completely out, and we all know the story of that poor soul who ate the dense weed brownie unknowingly. You cannot just keep consuming THC in a recreational…

We still work directly or in the case of wax just one short step from actual flowers cut fairly fresh from a plant. This is not as good as weed can be, it's just a starting state that was artificially enforced by laws.

Technology and science enhances everything by default. The exceptions are rare, and weed will not be one.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

hga wrote: post #6
techmarketerguy wrote: post #2

The real kicker is that even the slim chance of "unwanted mental health effects" could be reduced without removing the substance's pain and inflammation-relieving properties, if the US Gov't would simply allow the plant to be researched for pharmaceutical purposes.

Suspected "unwanted mental health effects" include full blow permanent schizophrenia. (Emphasis on suspected, for we know there's a lot of mental illness self-medication with psychoactive drugs starting with alcohol.) That strikes me as making it very hard to do ethical research of the sort you're positing.

That's a reasonable point, but marijuana use is already prevalent enough that you could probably recruit a statistically significant number of existing users with little difficulty and track the incidence of mental ill-health vs. a control population.

Re: Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

#130

Post by TylerE »

gonehome wrote: post #49
madaxe_again wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on the whole driving bit - but commensurately, whenever I'm in the US, I am astonished by how casually people drink and drive. Don't think it's a stoner problem, more an inconsiderate dickhead/cultural problem.

I think there are a couple of things with this. The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally). The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass tran…

The legal limit is only when arresting the driver is mandatory. If, in the judgement of the officer, you are impared, he can arrest you at 0.00.
Post reply on HN