United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Smoking Marijuana is 114 Times Safer Than Drinking Alcohol – Study
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/russia-today/smoke-pot/
Published: Feb 25, 2015
Author: Russia Today
Post Date: 2015-02-25 09:09:06 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1694
Comments: 13
As the debate over marijuana legalization continues in the United States, a new study suggests that smoking the controversial plant is about 114 times safer than drinking alcohol. In fact, alcohol was found to be the deadliest drug on an individual level, at least when it comes to the likelihood of a person dying due to consuming a lethal dose. Heroin and cocaine were the next most deadly substances, followed by tobacco, ecstasy, and meth. Trailing up the rear was marijuana. According to the team of international researchers behind the study, published in the journal ‘Scientific Reports,’ the findings suggest that marijuana risks – at least those related to mortality – are trumped when compared to substances like alcohol. “The results confirm that the risk of cannabis may have been overestimated in the past,” the report reads. “At least for the endpoint of mortality, the [margin of exposure] for THC/cannabis in both individual and population-based assessments would be above safety thresholds (e.g. 100 for data based on animal experiments). In contrast, the risk of alcohol may have been commonly underestimated.” As reported by the Washington Post, the study’s results aren’t exactly new, though they do confirm similar findings first reported a decade ago. In a separate story last year, the Post noted that Wayne Hall of the World Health Organization said it’s nearly impossible for even those who smoke large amounts of cannabis to overdose on the drug. “The estimated fatal dose [of THC, the primary active compound in marijuana] in humans derived from animal studies is between 15 and 70 grams. This is a far greater amount of cannabis that even a very heavy cannabis user could use in a day,” Hall wrote last year. Even alcohol’s unsafe margin of exposure (MOE) ratio isn’t all that surprising since, unlike heroin and cocaine, it is legal and much more readily available and accepted. Marijuana legalization advocates are welcoming the new study, using it to suggest that America’s current ban on the drug is wrong and misguided, considering the mortality rates associated with alcohol and tobacco – both of which are legal and easily accessible to those of age. Marijuana, meanwhile, is still illegal on the federal level and largely illegal on the state level – except in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia. Even the researchers noted that compared to other drugs, their findings support regulating pot as a legal substance instead of a banned one. “Currently, the MOE results point to risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs,” the report reads. “The high MOE values of cannabis, which are in a low-risk range, suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach.” Despite the new study, the American Academy of Pediatrics cautions that pot should not be smoked by children or teenagers, as there have been studies suggesting a link between youth smoking and impaired child development.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
This is silly. It's a good example of why science is a completely unreliable basis for making decisions about anything important. Science can be made to say anything, just by fiddling around with the assumptions and the statistical bases. Smoking anything is bad for you. The lungs are meant to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide between atmosphere and blood. That's it. They were not meant to inhale soot in any quantity, and directly inhaling ANY smoke of ANY burning leaves: tobacco, marijuana, tea, oak trees, is not good for the lungs. It's self evident. Do people cough when they smoke anything, or stick their head in a campfire? Yes. That means that there is smoke irritating the lungs, and that's bad. If science says otherwise, then science is ridiculous and should be ignored. Up isn't down, even if a guy in a lab coat says it is. Cholesterol in eggs doesn't cause heart attacks either. Never has. For three decades science has been screaming from the rooftops to stop eating it. And now science is coming to the realization that it has been totally, absolutely, unqualifiedly, categorically wrong and idiotic about egg cholesterol for 30 years. The people who said it was obvious that egg eaters were healthier and always had been were right all along, because they based what they said on what WAS obvious and common sense. And science had all of its studies and reasons, but the scientists were absolutely wrong, and their science actually HARMED PEOPLE'S HEALTH by causing them to stop eating eggs. Science is often idiotic, and it is no basis to make important decisions in life, especially not about HEALTH. Thalidomide and lobotomies were also the product of science: better living through chemistry. So was exposing kids with acne to massive doses of x-rays. Truth is, when it comes to nutrition, your grandmother who lived to 90 knew more that was true about what is good for you than the entire lot of nutritional scientists on the planet. If science says that smoking ANYTHING is harmless, then all such science must be disregarded and ridiculed as the junk it obviously is. Breathing soot is bad. If science says otherwise, science is a failure and science must be ridiculed for being the ignorant ass that science usually is. It's when scientists make such idiotic claims that the whole weakness of science as a basis for human decision is revealed. Science is untrustworthy. Decisions must never be based on science. They must be based on common sense and experience. Science can contribute, like astrology can. They can give insight, but they cannot actually be BELIEVED. What you see is true. What somebody sees through a microscope is a story and an opinion and an interpretation. Obviously. People have made an idol out of science and they sacrifice their brains to it. Like all idols, science needs to be cut down and reduced to what it is: the opinions of some men, and nothing more than that. Smoking marijuana is not bad for you because science says so? That merely proves that science is worthless. It's obvious that inhaling ANYTHING other than air, and that taking in ANYTHING that severely fiddles with the brain is bad. It's self evident. If science says differently, science should be ignored, suppressed and banished from the discussion, because it's worse than useless: it's stupid and dangerous. Down with science.
You are absolutely correct. No matter how you spin weed, it's not good for you... but freedom and liberty should mean that people are given enough rope to hang themselves, as long as I don't have to pay for their medical treatment, weed or funeral. Look at it this way, if you did a study of welfare recipients, you'd find a higher percentage of welfare muts smoke weed than non welfare recipients. That means alcohol, cigarettes, weed, HEROINE, crack and meth are a welfare funding tax payers best friend. We just need to find the courage and strength to pass legislation that prohibits tax collected money to pay for ANY social service handout that was caused due to drug or alcohol. Let them die. Live a risky lifestyle... then you should reap what you sow. You see, Deckard. I'm all for legal weed. Suck as much of that shit into your lungs as you can afford. I'm fair and balanced.
Then why do you support and defend drug warrior prohibitionists like misterwhite and gatlin, --- instead of our Constitution, which does NOT empower any level of govt to prohibit drugs, booze or guns?
Support them how? Are you asking if I voted for one of them for public office? Send them money? Hang out and have beers? Support how? I do none of that. Contrary to you, Deckard, Hondo and a host of other less tolerant (a liberal trait) posters here, I recognize that Mr. White and Gatlin are ENTITLED to have their own opinions. Just because I allow them their opinions, I'm supportive of them? Must be why you'd rather this forum be an echo chamber rather a place we can exchange ideals. The reason so many of you would rather it be an echo chamber is because you have agendas. You aren't trying to educate others towards your ideals... YOU ARE TRYING TO INDOCTRINATE IT.
#9. To: GrandIsland (#6)
(Edited)
Why do you support and defend drug warrior prohibitionists like misterwhite and gatlin, --- instead of our Constitution, which does NOT empower any level of govt to prohibit drugs, booze or guns? Your posting history here and particularly on LP shows numerous instances of you agreeing with misterwhite/gatlin on nearly every aspect of their anti- constitutional agenda. I've never said they aren't so entitled. I often criticize those opinions as being anti-constitutional. That is what this forum is all about. I'm more than willing to exchange ideas, -- in particular, ideas that support and defend our constitutional republic. -- Your friends support and defend majority rule statism, dayin/dayout. And quite often, they hide behind the bozo function to avoid debate. Thanks, because that's exactly what gatlin/misterwhite do. -- I'm a constitutionalist/ libertarian, and I post many articles that try to educate others to look at that viewpoint.. -- And I encourage EVERYONE to debate those views. Try to tell us that ---- your friends post like that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Vicomte13, Deckard (#2)
(Edited)
Smoking anything is bad for you. The lungs are meant to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.
#5. To: GrandIsland, and his prohibitionist buddies (#3)
I'm all for legal weed. Suck as much of that shit into your lungs as you can afford. I'm fair and balanced.
#6. To: tpaine (#5)
Then why do you support and defend drug warrior prohibitionists like misterwhite and gatlin, --- instead of our Constitution, which does NOT empower any level of govt to prohibit drugs, booze or guns?
Replies to Comment # 6. Support them how? Are you asking if I voted for one of them for public office? Send them money? Hang out and have beers? Support how? I do none of that.
Contrary to you, Deckard, Hondo and a host of other less tolerant (a liberal trait) posters here, I recognize that Mr. White and Gatlin are ENTITLED to have their own opinions.
Just because I allow them their opinions, I'm supportive of them? Must be why you'd rather this forum be an echo chamber rather a place we can exchange ideals.
The reason so many of you would rather it be an echo chamber is because you have agendas. You aren't trying to educate others towards your ideals... YOU ARE TRYING TO INDOCTRINATE IT.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]