145+ Scientific Studies Showing the Dangers of Marijuana

When I look at the studies you presented I see a trend.

1) That pot can adversely effect adolescence... which I am against them smoking pot anyway.

2) Chronic heavy users... which is no surprise that there would be negative effects... much like alcoholics and associated ill effects of chronic alcoholism.

But as far as "myth that it can be used responsibly or taken in moderation." your links do nothing to prove that.

You mean like alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver? Or how about those killed while driving drunk of those killed by drunk drivers.

And it lacks source citation and a link for us to review the study.

Nice strawman... I am not biting though. Did you personally vet each and everyone of those links... or did you just post them because they support your view?

 

"All of the marijuana users were heavy users, which was defined as smoking four or more joints per week."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/aaon-mso030706.php

Again that is heavy users and cannot be used to support your argument of "It is a myth that it can be used responsibly or taken in moderation."

 

What ever you want.

The one published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Neuropsychopharmacology?

Thanks for cherry picking one of the few linked to a news report (a very common tactic). I will simply replace it with the science news article,

Study suggests cannabis-users may be vulnerable to harder drugs (Mount Sinai School of Medicine)

 

Oh please pretend to be hung up on the terminology, "recreational" (moderate) users can easily smoke 4 joints a week.

 

That is not what you said. Either I can do what I want with my body or not and that includes turning it into a suicide bomb.

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate employment based on marijuana use?
Should marijuana users be allowed to drive?
Should marijuana users be allowed to smoke in public?

 

Its not "hung up on terminology", its me citing your own source which you now want to play semantics with. You use a study of "heavy users" to attempt to prove that "it is a myth that it can be used responsibly or taken in moderation.". If you do not agree with the study then why did you post it? Makes me think that you did not vet your sources.

IMO getting high 4 times a week would be heavy use... just like I would consider getting drunk 4 times per week heavy use.

 

Please provide the objective criteria for "moderate" use.

 

The burden of proof is upon you as it was you that made the initial claim that "it is a myth that it can be used responsibly or taken in moderation". If you disagree with your cited sources definition of "heavy use" then perhaps you should not have used them.

 

Did you even read the study before you agreed with the conclusions?

The title of the article is "Early cannabis abuse 'leads to heroin addiction." The article is about rats. The study isn't even linked. The scientist doesn't even say it. How could you possibly read that article and draw any conclusions from it? Are you an expert in the similarities of rat and human brains? How many times were these rats tested? How is this comparable to humans? Would other drugs yield similar results?

I'm not convinced that you aren't just typing "marijuana gateway drug" into google, and then copying and pasting the articles that support your opinion.

 

He didn't even read them.

 

No it is not. As terms such as "moderation" and "heavy use" are subjective,

Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow in Brain Even After Abstinence

"The light users smoked two to 15 joints per week. The moderate users smoked 17 to 70 joints per week, and the heavy users smoked 78 to 350 joints per week."

Please provide the objective criteria for "moderate" use. Unless you are not intellectually honest?

 

I have read all the studies but I have not memorized each word from them.

Are you illiterate? I just linked to the study but can not longer edit the original article. I have updated my list (which I am unable to linke to here) by replacing it with the dailymail link with this one,

Study suggests cannabis-users may be vulnerable to harder drugs (Mount Sinai School of Medicine)

You will not find most of those studies doing such a search. You seemed confused as the whole point of the exercise was to show scientific studies of the dangers of marijuana.

Incorrect.

 

I am so happy that you do not present anecdotal evidence...

Oh wait... you do!

 

Yes, you could cherry pick this.

No the hundreds of scientific studies that show positive health effects, have you not read them either? And drunk driving is illegal.

Try buying a subscription to the New York Times. Are you done cherry picking the news sources yet? At least you are predictable.

I don't understand which link is fake?

 

nonsense. there are far more clinical studies that point to the efficacy of cannabis, than your list of 145.

UCSD Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research

National Cancer Institute Human clinical studies Cannabis

http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/studies.htm

(this is a good one that lists the various clinical studies with a legend that indicates:
· Improvement of symptoms or positive evaluation by authors
o No relevant change of symptoms or negative evaluation by authors
v Deterioration of symptoms

just scroll down and it will give you a more informed picture.

So does talking on the phone, drinking coffee, smoking, zanax, alcohol, attempting sex.
Its not nearly as problematic as alcohol or meth or heroin or cough syrup.

here's a searchable list (very long) of cannabis clinical trials. It FAR outweighs the short list you have presented and in some instances directly refutes them.

http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

Okay. So relativity isn't part of the discussion. I get it.

 

Wrong. You are free to harm yourself. Not others.

Not if it's used on their personal time.

No.

Yes.

 

Thanks for proving that your links cannot even come to an agreement of what constitutes moderate pot use. How does this help your argument at all? Which study do you trust when they seem to not agree with each other? The one that in your view most supports your preconceived position?

I have none and leave it up to the scientists to decide... which it seems that they cannot even come to an agreement. Hardly makes the findings trustworthy if a baseline of what is considered moderate use cannot even be established and agreed upon.

 

Accuses me of cherry picking...

... then hypocritically does the same.

Try citing sources that have links to the research.

I was thinking the same about you.

Fake... where did I say fake?

 

FDA argument is so retarded it barely warrents a response FDA prevents others from harming you with food/drugs you have to assume is safe. weed and other substance you know the risk.

i can grow my own weed and know the risk. i cant raise cows and slaughter them in my downtown condo for a burger.

 

I only looked at one. I have no interest in looking at the others. You are right about not being able to memorize the words in the studies. They are very specific terms to the field of neuroscience. You don't even know what you are agreeing with. I did find this at the bottom of the page:

This study doesn't even agree with the article headline. You have a very weakly correlated theory. In fact, look at these numbers:

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2K8NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.1A

100,518 people have tried marijuana. 3,780 people have tried heroin. These are actual people, and not rats. This is too statistically insignificant to even care about.

 

Strawman, why would they agree on a subjectively defined term? I have just demonstrated that the term is subjectively defined and irrelevant to my argument which is still supported by the initial study I cited.

So you are either intellectually dishonest or do not understand what subjectivity is. Which is it?

 

Yes, you are quite good at it.

Which study did I leave out that shows the dangers of marijuana?

I did, you not having a subscription to the New York Times is not my problem.

You are accusing me of not vetting the links, so I asked which link is fake? Otherwise your claim does not make any sense.

 

Amazing. This kid is posting links to articles without the study, and to articles that require you to pay for them? He also claims to have read every single study. I'm surprised how many experts in advanced sciences there are on the internet.

 

So why does the FDA ban any drugs instead of just telling you the risks?

 

Do you not know why? because congress decided at one point the FDA should do that. What your reply has to do with my point? i havnt the slightest idea.