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

Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 431 posts

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#421

Post by bitcoinisqueen »

ynniv wrote: post #297
rayiner wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last point is unsupportable. The increase in crime rate started in the 1960s: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Violent-Crim... . By 1982, when Reagan declared the war on drugs, violent crime had nearly quadrupled since 1960, and was near the eventual 1992 peak. It had already more than doubled by 1972 when Nixon first used the phrase “war on drugs” (though it wasn’t Reagan that actually waged that…

An explanation that fits the data better Only if you ignore the overwhelming racial bias in enforcement.

I'm pretty sure from recent research that black neighborhoods are under policed relative to white neighborhoods from some recent work I did.

We looked at a lot of research and came to conclusion that the "racial profiling boogeyman" is actually a convenient cultural myth to perpetuate "oppression stereotypes".

Don't take my word for it, but it is worth looking into.

Since you made a claim and did not substantiate and just took at as given.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#422

Post by gwerbret »

mmt wrote: post #416
gwerbret wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out that cannabis is, and has been, extensively researched for years, in Canada and elsewhere (researchers could apply for special access). Thanks to this work, we know that there is one, exactly one robust, reliable clinical application of a cannabis chemical that stands out: to treat otherwise hard-to-treat childhood epilepsies. The chemical responsible for this is cannabidiol, which is the most abundant n…

> (researchers could apply for special access) I'm aware of the special access, and I'm even aware that it has resulted in actual pharmaceuticals. The problem with special access is that it has a huge chilling effect. I suspect only the very most motivated (and funded? or just politically protected?) would attempt it. What about semi-synthetics? I have to imagine it's easier to experiment with synthesis if there's a…

To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the human cellular pathways that respond to cannabis are extremely far-reaching and far more interesting. To this end, there has indeed been a great deal of synthetic chemistry to experiment with and manipulate these pathways.

>Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a long and hard road, there's also adjunct therapy, or did those studies actually include using cannabis chemicals in addition to the standard ones?

Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies, which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making you high.)

A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi... .

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#423

Post by volandovengo »

Cofike wrote: post #127

I was born in Buffalo, no longer there due to lack of tech jobs (that isn’t blue cross blue shield). The Canadian side of Niagara Falls already destroys our side. Much more development. Way more activities to do. Gorgeous view of the falls. All around better. Now that weed is legalized this will only become more and more apparent. They will attract more individuals from both sides of the border and I bet see much mor…

I would offer a contrarian perspective on this development: this isn't good for society.

While for sure we don't want people going to prison for smoking a joint - this also isn't necessarily good for society for corporations to promote recreational legal drugs. Was it a good thing for the tobacco and alcohol industries to basically run amuck in their advertising campaigns all over the world? Are we better as we world for it?

Better thoughts than my own are in this TED Talk on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klafHRlhNg4

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#424

Post by mmt »

gwerbret wrote: post #422
mmt wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (researchers could apply for special access) I'm aware of the special access, and I'm even aware that it has resulted in actual pharmaceuticals. The problem with special access is that it has a huge chilling effect. I suspect only the very most motivated (and funded? or just politically protected?) would attempt it. What about semi-synthetics? I have to imagine it's easier to experiment with synthesis if there's a…

To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the human cellular pathways that respond to cannabis are extremely far-reaching and far more interesting. To this end, there has indeed been a great deal of synthetic chemistry to experiment with and manipulate these pathways. >Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a l…

>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here

Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim through it so far.

I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes have more to do with it than legalization.

> Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies, which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making you high.)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? Or that such a patient would more likely receive actually better benefits? Or that they would be more likely to be in the trial in the first place?

Are there clinical trials where the participants don't know what (potential) active therapy they could get is? The ones I've looked at in the US have always said, but I've only looked at a couple very specific conditions.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#425

Post by gwerbret »

mmt wrote: post #424
gwerbret wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the human cellular pathways that respond to cannabis are extremely far-reaching and far more interesting. To this end, there has indeed been a great deal of synthetic chemistry to experiment with and manipulate these pathways. >Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a l…

>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim through it so far. I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes have more to do with it than legalization. > Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studie…

>I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)?

In cases in which the active agent is THC or a similarly psychoactive agent, patients are indeed more likely to report positive overall effects simply because they know they're receiving the active agent; i.e. the placebo effect. This would apply whether they've used cannabis before or not. You don't have this problem with trials of the non-psychoactive cannabis chemicals, which fortunately is most trials.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#426

Post by mmt »

gwerbret wrote: post #425
mmt wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim through it so far. I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes have more to do with it than legalization. > Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studie…

>I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? In cases in which the active agent is THC or a similarly psychoactive agent, patients are indeed more likely to report positive overall effects simply because they know they're receiving the active agent; i.e. the placebo effec…

That certainly makes sense with THC, and ties back to your earlier remark about clinically significant quantities of it.

For some studies, I've seen reference to using an active placebo (so the placebo group feels something), but I realize that can pollute the side effects data, and it may be useless for psychoactives where the effect is publically well-known.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#427

Post by mito88 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #265
ada1981 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment is correct. It’s not even a controversial position, as it’s been stated publically by the people who crafted and implemented the legislation that this was the stated aim. And the US demanded that other countries adopt our drug policy laws and they followed our lead. This cognitive censorship is something to be outraged about - flies directly in the face of the Establishment Clause of the first Amem…

> And the US demanded that other countries adopt our drug policy laws and they followed our lead. I know it's a common meme on HN but I find it hard to believe that the whole world decided to ban cannabis just because the US wanted to. It may have been a contributing/deciding factor in some places but there must be more to it.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#428

Post by mito88 »

superflyguy wrote: post #176
flukus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

You're both right. The origins are racial ("Chasing the scream" by Hari is another good resource here) and the brainwashing was successful so for a while now we're stuck with the consequences. When the old stupid racists (who voted for Brexit) finally die (not so long hopefully) younger people (more likely to use or know someone who uses) will legalise it. Politicians just reflect society; it's not true that a clear…

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#429

Post by sametmax »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #73

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisatio…

> I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisation has been a success.

When facing that kind of behavior, I always remind my self that at some point, people advocated against trains because the speed of it would cause eyes damage by watching through the windows and moving that fast from one place to another would have terrible psychological impacts.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#430

Post by sametmax »

titanix2 wrote: post #208
stabbles wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not legal, it's tolerated in law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen )

I which it isn’t. I’ve seen a high school friend falling into that gradually: he started speaking about cannabis to the point it became its only topic of conversation. Then of course he hanged only with people with similar interest. He became weird during the breaks and needed to smoke something, anything. After that when I went to the university he became a small dealer. He got enough money from that activity to ren…

Same story with a friend of mine.

But I see similar patterns with alcohol, food, video games or TV. Even books. People look for something to cope with life, and as long as we, as a society, don't provide a sufficient support for each others, anything that can be abused will be.

Post reply on HN