Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by chromas on Wednesday May 22 2019, @04:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the positive-outcomes dept.

Study finds CBD effective in treating heroin addiction

For their study, published Tuesday in the American Journal of Psychiatry, [Yasmin] Hurd and her colleagues looked at 42 adults who had a recent history of heroin use and were not using methadone or buprenorphine.

Recruited from social services groups, halfway houses and treatment centers, the participants had used heroin for an average of 13 years, and most had gone less than a month without using. They had to abstain from any heroin use for the entire trial period.

The participants were divided into three groups: one group given 800 milligrams of CBD, another 400 milligrams of CBD and another a placebo. All the participants were dosed once daily for three consecutive days and followed over the next two weeks.

During those two weeks, over the course of several sessions, the participants were shown images or videos of nature scenes as well as images of drug use and heroin-related paraphernalia, like syringes and packets of powder that resembled heroin. They were then asked to rate their craving for heroin and their levels of anxiety.

A week after the last administration of CBD, those who had been given CBD had a two- to three-fold reduction in cravings relative to the placebo group. Hurd said the difference between the two CBD groups was insignificant. The research team also measured heart rate and cortisol, the "stress hormone," and found that the levels in those who got CBD were significantly lower than those who hadn't received the drug

Cannabidiol for the Reduction of Cue-Induced Craving and Anxiety in Drug-Abstinent Individuals With Heroin Use Disorder: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial (DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18101191) (DX)

Related: Study Finds That Legalized Medical Cannabis Led to a Decline in Medicare Prescriptions
Study: Legal Weed Far Better Than Drug War at Stopping Opioid Overdose Epidemic
Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis
Two More Studies Link Access to Cannabis to Lower Use of Opioids


Original Submission

Related Stories

Study Finds That Legalized Medical Cannabis Led to a Decline in Medicare Prescriptions 42 comments

Researchers have found that states with legalized medical cannabis saw declines in Medicare prescriptions for drugs such as opioids and antidepressants:

Research published [DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1661] Wednesday found that states that legalized medical marijuana — which is sometimes recommended for symptoms like chronic pain, anxiety or depression — saw declines in the number of Medicare prescriptions for drugs used to treat those conditions and a dip in spending by Medicare Part D, which covers the cost on prescription medications.

Because the prescriptions for drugs like opioid painkillers and antidepressants — and associated Medicare spending on those drugs — fell in states where marijuana could feasibly be used as a replacement, the researchers said it appears likely legalization led to a drop in prescriptions. That point, they said, is strengthened because prescriptions didn't drop for medicines such as blood-thinners, for which marijuana isn't an alternative.

The study, which appears in Health Affairs, examined data from Medicare Part D from 2010 to 2013. It is the first study to examine whether legalization of marijuana changes doctors' clinical practice and whether it could curb public health costs.

The findings add context to the debate as more lawmakers express interest in medical marijuana. This year, Ohio and Pennsylvania passed laws allowing the drug for therapeutic purposes, making it legal in 25 states, plus Washington, D.C. The approach could also come to a vote in Florida and Missouri this November. A federal agency is considering reclassifying medical marijuana under national drug policy to make it more readily available.

Medical marijuana saved Medicare about $165 million in 2013, the researchers concluded. They estimated that, if medical marijuana were available nationwide, Medicare Part D spending would have declined in the same year by about $470 million. That's about half a percent of the program's total expenditures.

Less prescription opioids? It seems a few pharmaceutical companies have a reason to fear legal cannabis (as long as they aren't in the business of selling it).


Original Submission

Study: Legal Weed Far Better Than Drug War at Stopping Opioid Overdose Epidemic 73 comments

The Free Thought Project reports via AlterNet

There's one thing that appears to be saving more lives during the opioid epidemic than anything else--medical cannabis. While government touts meaningless attempts at addressing the problem--paying lip service to the people while protecting Big Pharma's profits and filling jails--people are saving themselves by turning to an ancient plant.

Yet another scientific study has confirmed that medical cannabis access reduces harm from opioid abuse among the population. A recent study published in the Drug and Alcohol Dependency journal found that states with legal medical cannabis experience fewer hospitalizations related to opioids.

"Medical marijuana legalization was associated with 23% and 13% reductions in hospitalizations related to opioid dependence or abuse and [opioid pain reliever] OPR overdose, respectively; lagged effects were observed after policy implementation."

Researchers from the University of California analyzed hospital administrative records for the period of 1997 to 2014. The author reported:

"This study demonstrated significant reductions on OPR- (opioid pain reliever) related hospitalizations associated with the implementation of medical marijuana policies. ... We found reductions in OPR-related hospitalizations immediately after the year of policy implementation as well as delayed reductions in the third post-policy year."

The data also show that cannabis-related hospitalizations did not increase after legalization, contrary to what prohibitionists would have you believe.


Original Submission

Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis 23 comments

Opioid commission's anti-marijuana argument stirs anger

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, head of the presidential commission on opioids, warned of the dangers of marijuana in a letter to President Donald Trump earlier this month about the panel's findings, saying the current push for marijuana legalization could further fuel the opioid epidemic.

"There is a lack of sophisticated outcome data on dose, potency, and abuse potential for marijuana. This mirrors the lack of data in the 1990s and early 2000s when opioid prescribing multiplied across health care settings and led to the current epidemic of abuse, misuse and addiction," Christie wrote in the letter, which was released with the commission's final report.

"The Commission urges that the same mistake is not made with the uninformed rush to put another drug legally on the market in the midst of an overdose epidemic."

[...] But some experts say the commission's fixation on marijuana was bizarre and troubling, lending credence to outdated views of marijuana as a gateway drug. And these experts want to nip such thinking in the bud.

They emphasized that they support efforts to curb the nation's opioid epidemic, but not the demonization of marijuana in the process.

"I was surprised to see negative language about marijuana in the opioid report," said Dr. Chinazo Cunningham, a professor of medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Research that examines pain and marijuana shows that marijuana use significantly reduces pain. In addition, the majority of studies examining marijuana and opioids show that marijuana use is associated with less opioid use and less opioid-related deaths."

You had one job.

Previously:


Original Submission

Two More Studies Link Access to Cannabis to Lower Use of Opioids 18 comments

Marijuana legalization could help offset opioid epidemic, studies find

Experts have proposed using medical marijuana to help Americans struggling with opioid addiction. Now, two studies suggest that there is merit to that strategy.

The studies, published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine [open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0266] [DX], compared opioid prescription patterns in states that have enacted medical cannabis laws with those that have not. One of the studies looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicare Part D between 2010 and 2015, while the other looked at opioid prescriptions covered by Medicaid between 2011 and 2016.

The researchers found that states that allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes had 2.21 million fewer daily doses of opioids prescribed per year under Medicare Part D, compared with those states without medical cannabis laws. Opioid prescriptions under Medicaid also dropped by 5.88% in states with medical cannabis laws compared with states without such laws, according to the studies.

"This study adds one more brick in the wall in the argument that cannabis clearly has medical applications," said David Bradford, professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia and a lead author of the Medicare study. "And for pain patients in particular, our work adds to the argument that cannabis can be effective."

Also at the Washington Post.

Association of Medical and Adult-Use Marijuana Laws With Opioid Prescribing for Medicaid Enrollees (open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1007) (DX)

Previously:
Study: Legal Weed Far Better Than Drug War at Stopping Opioid Overdose Epidemic
Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:11AM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:11AM (#846059)

    "I like weed, medical usage makes weed legal, so lets run studies until we find a medical excuse for weed".

    And I think all drugs should be legal. Medical research is just at such a low level in every way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:18AM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:18AM (#846061)

      So you dispute the findings based on your own studies?

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:24AM (7 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:24AM (#846062) Journal

        So you dispute the findings based on your own studies?

        No, like so many people, he disputes the findings based on his own ignorance.

        The study provided CBD, not even THC.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:30AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:30AM (#846064)

          No, not what I am saying at all. This study is part of a larger effort to justify legalizing mdma, ketamine, and more. As I said I am in favor of that end result, but this politicalization of medical research is just going to make it even worse than it is now.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:51AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:51AM (#846074)

            this politicalization of medical research is just going to make it even worse than it is now

            How is this politicalization'?
            How is this, under whatever name, going to make the things worse?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:08AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:08AM (#846078)

              Look up the criteria for being a schedule 1 drug:
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act [wikipedia.org]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:43AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:43AM (#846093)

                How about I really answer the question instead of being handwavy with a tangentially related link?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @08:12AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @08:12AM (#846103)

                  I feel like I'm communicating with a bot or small child with little understanding of the world and only canned responses available.

                  Any medical use accepted by the DEA means a drug cannot be schedule 1, which is the path to lgalization.

                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:25AM (1 child)

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:25AM (#846110) Journal

                    And if a valid medical use is found, should we just ignore it because it offends your own personal view of how things should be? Any drug that is found to help us cope with pain, heal ourselves or prevent or reduce other more serious medical problems from occurring should be researched and, if proven to be useful, employed in a controlled manner. I would agree that drug abuse is something that we should strive to prevent, but drugs used in a controlled manner by qualified doctors under clearly specified conditions must be fair game.

                    Do you use sticking plasters to cover a wound? How about analgesics to combat headaches or minor pains? Where should the line be drawn regarding which drugs are acceptable and which are not?

                    I feel like I'm communicating with a bot or small child with little understanding of the world and only canned responses available.

                    Perhaps you need to explain your point of view more clearly rather than making a sweeping statement that appears to others as nothing more than your personal view of how things should be. You are entitled to your view, but you are not the final arbiter of what medical research is permitted and what is not.

                    --
                    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:31PM

                      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:31PM (#846323) Journal

                      And if a valid medical use is found, should we just ignore it because it offends your own personal view of how things should be?

                      Well, the DEA agrees with the AC, unfortunately.

                      Schedule 1 is defined as "no medical use." Yet, medical use has already been established but the DEA chooses to ignore that evidence.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:26AM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:26AM (#846063)

        What's to dispute? These types of studies are no better then a bunch of monks praying and then arguing with each other.

        Let me know when they have a theory that makes a prediction they check against new data, or multiple groups measure the same quantity in various ways as precisely as possible, etc. Basically, let me know when medical research is science again.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:54AM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:54AM (#846075)

          Let me know when they have a theory that makes a prediction they check against new data, or multiple groups measure the same quantity in various ways as precisely as possible, etc. Basically, let me know when medical research is science again.

          By this measure, medical research was never a science.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:05AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:05AM (#846077)

            No, go read the psychology and medical research pre WWII. It was definitely science back then. Something changed.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:45AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @07:45AM (#846094)

              No, that's not how science works. Since you've already read them, you can write a literature survey about it (with references). Don't expect others to do your homework for you and then pretend you have made an argument.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @08:09AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @08:09AM (#846102)

                I know exactly what papers I would include in such a post and even some exact quotes, but it's not really worth the effort for this site where it would probably just get downvoted.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:30AM (2 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:30AM (#846111) Journal

                  Does ...

                  "I know exactly what papers I would include in such a post and even some exact quotes, but it's not really worth the effort for this site where it would probably just get downvoted."

                  ... mean the same as 'I didn't expect to be called out on this point!" Perhaps those references would help convince some of us to change our views?

                  --
                  I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:04AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:04AM (#846116)

                    No he's right in a way. Medical research got a lot more ethical. You can't experiment on people like you could back then, you can't even experiment on animals like they did on people. I'm certainly not saying this is a bad thing, but the research is a lot fuzzier these days.
                    It's not politically correct but there is still a use for a lot of the data generated by Nazi and Jap experiments on prisoners. There is no way to repeat that data and some of it would be simply unobtainable now.

                    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 22 2019, @04:32PM

                      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @04:32PM (#846287) Journal

                      While that's a valid point, and there's certainly a lot more p-hacking now, I still disagree with his basic statement.

                      What's happening is that if you look at "long ago history" the inferior stuff that happened at the same time has been pruned away, so all you see is the good stuff. At least that's a large part of what's happening.

                      Another part is that the "low hanging fruit" has mostly been picked. So it's a lot harder to come up with good results. And corporate secrecy with academic cooperation has certainly gotten worse, so it's harder to see what's going on.

                      But I still think that the main reason old stuff looks better is "Rust and the moth are the only true critics".

                      --
                      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:33PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:33PM (#846329) Journal

            By this measure, medical research was never a science.

            They say that about pretty much all science 'round these parts.

            The idea that SN is a Science/Technology forum is laughable. This is an ANTI-Science/ANTI-Technology website.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:13AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:13AM (#846066)

      The ingrediënt in cannabis that makes you high is THC. CBD does not have that effect. Not only high THC cannabis exists, low THC cannabis (called hemp) has always been around and has been used for making rope and other things long before anyone even got the idea that drugs should be forbidden. And hemp naturally has a higher CDB content than high THC cannabis. The obvious source for CDB therefore is something that isn't useful as a drug.

      You could have found this information in just a few minutes if you had not mistaken your beliefs for facts and had instead been inclined to verify them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:26AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:26AM (#846068)

        Not sure what this has to do with my post.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:30AM (#846129)

          Ask aristarchus. He is sure to know.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:11AM (2 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @10:11AM (#846119) Journal

    If this form of cannabis gets people as high as smoking it, I wish pot smokers would choose it instead. I hate the smell of dead skunk. It's an odor we feared in the West and traded remedies to neutralize, but in the big city people volunteer to smell like ass.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @12:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @12:28PM (#846162)

      Ever have one of those moments where your grandma makes a statement that demonstrates a vast disconnection with a subject beyond your own capacity to explain it? Deep down, you still compulsively desire to transfer knowledge, but, remember the times in the past where you tried and realized 5 minutes in that you’re sorry you said anything.

    • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:45PM

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @01:45PM (#846190) Journal

      CBD is an oil that isn't usually smoked. It can be vaped, taken in pill form, or added to edibles. It doesn't get you high. It contains no THC, the restricted chemical in "pot".

  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 22 2019, @02:58PM (13 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @02:58PM (#846238) Journal

    Marijuana isn't the "Safe" drug that supporters want you to believe it is.

    Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence
    https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663 [amazon.com]

    Study mentioned the book:
    CANNABIS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA A Longitudinal Study of Swedish Conscripts
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673687926201 [sciencedirect.com]

    Abstract

    The association between level of cannabis consumption and development of schizophrenia during a 15-year follow-up was studied in a cohort of 45 570 Swedish conscripts. The relative risk for schizophrenia among high consumers of cannabis (use on more than fifty occasions) was 6·0 (95% confidence interval 4·0—8·9) compared with non-users. Persistence of the association after allowance for other psychiatric illness and social background indicated that cannabis is an independent risk factor for schizophrenia.

    Considering the passing of our resident soylentil (MichaelDavidCrawford), I wonder if his abuse of the substance contributed to the development of the mental health problems he had.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:32PM (5 children)

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 22 2019, @05:32PM (#846326) Journal

      You'll have a very difficult case making a scientific argument to me against Marijuana legalization. I'm old enough to remember this propaganda...

      "I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast" - Ronald Reagan.

      I can't square that statement with the observable impacts of Marijuana decriminalization (Oregon 1974) and legalization (California 1996). I'm a tea-totaling prude (if a touch kinky), but I'm pro-legalization of everything. We've sacrificed a giant pile of freedoms on the anti-drug altar. I'd like to leave my kids a better world than that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @11:06PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @11:06PM (#846414)

        And neither has done anything to help the impressionable youths do anything except be impressioned that authority is good, and to obey authority, even if if is making you do something illegal or bad (like shooting you up with heroin to make you more malleable for their own sexual misconduct...)

        The best thing we could do for society today is make it legal to record all interactions with other people in public, and require a prominent tag on clothing in private indicating that you are recording the exchange, and that said recording is only valid in providing evidence of a crime and not for personal or commercial usage.

        This would do far more to keep us safe from actual predators and those who abuse drugs to control others (whether voluntary or involuntary in their initial usage) and keeps pervasive surveillance out of the hands of the government, where it cannot be trusted at all.

        A decade ago having the government provide that infrastructure might have made sense, but today it should be handled by civilians and not made too easy to stream into the cloud for public consumption. It's entirely doable, but requires society to demand the changes itself.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:01PM

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:01PM (#846730) Journal

          Yeah, let's stray away from the total privacy invasion that recording every little thing ever, would introduce. Sure, it might be beneficial in some aspects, but it won't lead to a free society. It's much more likely to lead to a totalitarian regime of some sort.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:00AM (#846504)

        Thank you for such a reasonable and thoughtful comment. It gives me hope to see others resist the status quo; especially so in the case bad laws. Drug addition of any kind should not be a crime but rather an illness and society will be better served once we begin responding with proper treatment options instead of handcuffs and felonies.

      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)

        by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:12PM (#846732) Journal

        Personally, I don't have anything against the legalization of the use and purchase of Marijuana. Legalization of the sale of Marijuana should be dependent on study of the potential harms of the use of Marijuana. Perhaps, the only real danger to Marijuana users is using it when you're brain is still developing (say random range of birth to 16 or whatever). Then, it should definitely be illegal to sell to minors, but go ahead and legalize the sale to adults. Perhaps, the drug will be a wonder drug and only has benefits, Highly doubtful, but in that case we'd only want to regulate it like we do any other crop. All I'm saying instead of going from one extreme, total ban, to another extreme, let's sell it to everyone, isn't a good choice.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:02PM

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:02PM (#846762) Journal

          This presupposes that we can do unbiased science on the potential harm in a world where a sitting President says the quote provided.

          Even if the scientists behind it were as pure as driven snow it would still be tainted by the crap that's been peddled for the last 50 years. At 18 you are an adult. You should be able to vote, drive, drink, grow, and smoke what you'd like.

          See also: Liberty - noun - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:08PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22 2019, @06:08PM (#846339)

      You're a massive idiot.

      "among high consumers"

      No shit, high consumers of any recreational drug have problems. I'll take high consumers of cannabis over cigarette smokers, alcoholics, meth/coke heads, pill poppers, etc.

      People like you are holding society back and causing undue amounts of suffering. THANKS A LOT!

      Want to help? Help spread real educational information, not just your fear mongering tea-totalling bullshit.

      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:58PM

        by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:58PM (#846729) Journal

        Their definition of "high users" was "use on more than fifty occasions". By that definition nearly everyone who has an occasional Alcoholic drink fits that description. Science doesn't care about your perception of recreational drug use. Personally, I think it would be good to decriminalize the use of Marijuana (including the safe guard of purchasers), but not necessarily the sale of Marijuana. Legalization of the sale of Marijuana should be dependent on the safety of the drug. After, extensive studies have been done and people informed of the potential dangers of Marijuana. Legalizing the use of the drug might help alleviate some of the undue societal pressures on some of the less fortunate in our society. Which I would call a win, but at the same time we should provide them the knowledge they need to succeed. At least in this case, the potential dangers of the use of Marijuana or the potential benefits of Marijuana.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:49PM (1 child)

      by Barenflimski (6836) on Wednesday May 22 2019, @09:49PM (#846396)

      This study does not say anything about people that medicate themselves because their brain hurts before they are diagnosed with something.

      Is this the argument where if a few people have issues with something, the rest of the world should not use it or do it?

      Waking up isn't "safe" either. One of these days we are all going to wake up dead.

      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:40PM

        by Freeman (732) on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:40PM (#846700) Journal

        Personally, I would prefer the use of Marijuana to be decriminalized. What I don't want is for people to be pushing "safe" drugs, when in fact, they aren't. Before we talk about legalizing the sale of Marijuana, we need to take a serious look at the potential dangers of Marijuana use. Major studies need to be done and I'm quite certain they could get a whole bunch of willing volunteers.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday May 23 2019, @01:54AM (2 children)

      by dry (223) on Thursday May 23 2019, @01:54AM (#846484) Journal

      Yes, it is well known that mentally ill people self medicate.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:25PM (#846696)

        While probably true and it's good to keep that in mind. That doesn't dismiss the entire study outright. The interesting thing about the study is that it was able to be done on such a large group of people, at a time when Marijuana use was on the rise, in a place that didn't make it criminal to admit that you'd been smoking Marijuana. They also controlled for "allowance for other psychiatric illness and social background".

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 24 2019, @03:29AM

          by dry (223) on Friday May 24 2019, @03:29AM (#846929) Journal

          I do know that there are people who shouldn't use marijuana as they have a tendency to schizophrenia. Anyways one of the nice things about legalization here in Canada is going to be getting some better non-political studies.

(1)