Support NeoGAF

[SocksAndShoes]

You doubt the American Journal of Cardiology? Who do you trust then?

No, I'm doubting that the American Journal of Cardiology has made such a claim.

Marijuana could potentially contribute to heart attacks in people who are already at risk but no study anywhere (to my knowledge) has definitively linked heart attacks with marijuana use and ONLY marijuana use.

But if you have a study positing the contrary, please share it.

 

[Brakke]

No, I'm doubting that the American Journal of Cardiology has made such a claim.

Marijuana could potentially contribute to heart attacks in people who are already at risk but no study anywhere (to my knowledge) has definitively linked heart attacks with marijuana use and ONLY marijuana use.

But if you have a study positing the contrary, please share it.

That is a pretty huge population.

 

[TrafalgarLaw]

You obviously don't know much then, as in the US alone it is prescribed medicinally for far more things than simply severe arthritis.

Cannabis is legal here so we don't need to prescribe it. If one wants to use it, he or she can go ahead. Forgive me for not knowing US-specific regulations, since I don't deal with them. I'm just here to clear up some myths.

 

[cackhyena]

So you posted "Sure, let's just go with your word on it. I'm sure we'll all be better off." because "it can't all be that way" and you assume there are people doing research?

What? I don't assume anything. I've seen enough articles. I choose to believe some of these people are doing actual, unbiased research. Crazy, I know.

 

[Wolfe]

Cannabis is legal here so we don't need to prescribe it. If one wants to use it, he or she can go ahead. Forgive me for not knowing US-specific regulations, since I don't deal with them. I'm just here to clear up some myths.

My apologies my post came off rather callously.

 

[Matugi]

No, I'm doubting that the American Journal of Cardiology has made such a claim.

Marijuana could potentially contribute to heart attacks in people who are already at risk but no study anywhere (to my knowledge) has definitively linked heart attacks with marijuana use and ONLY marijuana use.

But if you have a study positing the contrary, please share it.

It's like caffeine; people who already have high blood pressure are at risk for heart attack and stroke. But this is not a reason to avoid caffeine assumption, and no credible research has ever proposed the caffeine causes heart attack and stroke.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

That is a pretty huge population.

And it's also one of a gazillion possible other contributing factors including things like vigorous exercise.

Listen, I'm not saying it's a perfectly safe drug, and I agree that we need to research it more thoroughly. I'm simply saying that claiming that it is literally causing people to drop dead is ridiculous hyperbole that isn't backed up by any evidence.

 

[railGUN]

Plants evolved toxins since they're immobile to defend from herbivores.

This from the earth bs has to stop.

That said I don't feel weed is more harmful than tobacco and way less worse than antidepressants.

I've never seen that scrawled under a bridge in weathered jiffy marker, so I'll have to take your word.

 

[lord quas]

i think you're missing the point. I've smoked before and I'm basically in perfect health. But there are always outliers, which is what your argument is relying upon. Someone with diabetes could have a devastating insulin spike after drinking a single soda which could kill them. but it doesn't mean that soda causes kidney/liver/pancreas failure.

Cannabis (along with amphetamines, and cocaine and anticholinergic meds etc. etc.) can, for example, induce a psychotic state. I'm not sure why you would compare genetic predisposition for psychotic disorders, which is often unknown to the individual, to someone who has diabetes and actually knows that he/she should be limiting sugar intake.

I'm not saying that weed is the direct and only cause and that it doesn't have any medical value, but advertising weed as God's gift to mankind goes a little too far.

 

[TrafalgarLaw]

Marijuana inhalation has been linked to a higher event rate for acute myocardial infarction and an increase in mortality after myocardial infarction. In 2001, Mittleman et al. addressed the question by interviewing 3,882 patients with acute myocardial infarctions about marijuana use and found that the risk for developing myocardial infarction was 4.8 times higher than average in the hour immediately after marijuana use.

Marijuana use may also precipitate the development of myocardial infarction in patients with coronary artery disease. After myocardial infarction, mortality is significantly higher in marijuana users than in the general population. In a study of 1,913 adults after hospitalization for myocardial infarction, Mukamal et al. found a 4.2-fold increased risk for mortality in marijuana users who reported consuming the drug more than once per week before the onset of the infarction compared with nonusers.

Straight from Journal of American Cardiology

Source

 

[CornBurrito]

Plants evolved toxins since they're immobile to defend from herbivores.

This from the earth bs has to stop.

That said I don't feel weed is more harmful than tobacco and way less worse than antidepressants.

I mean as a toxin it seems only a bit more harmful to humans than capsaicin. But I get what you mean. Naturalistic fallacy is annoying.

 

[Matugi]

Cannabis (along with amphetamines, and cocaine and anticholinergic meds etc. etc.) can, for example, induce a psychotic state. I'm not sure why you would compare genetic predisposition for psychotic disorders, which is often unknown to the individual, to someone who has diabetes and actually knows that he/she should be limiting sugar intake.

I'm not saying that weed is the direct and only cause and that it doesn't have any medical value, but advertising weed as God's gift to mankind goes a little too far.

complete non-sequitur. The argument was about cannabis causing heart attacks. And cool strawman at the end there.

 

[Jarate]

Cannabis (along with amphetamines, and cocaine and anticholinergic meds etc. etc.) can, for example, induce a psychotic state. I'm not sure why you would compare genetic predisposition for psychotic disorders, which is often unknown to the individual, to someone who has diabetes and actually knows that he/she should be limiting sugar intake.

I'm not saying that weed is the direct and only cause and that it doesn't have any medical value, but advertising weed as God's gift to mankind goes a little too far.

who in this thread has said it's gods gift to man?

 

[GeordieMark]

And it's also one of a gazillion possible other contributing factors including things like vigorous exercise.

Listen, I'm not saying it's a perfectly safe drug, and I agree that we need to research it more thoroughly. I'm simply saying that claiming that it is literally causing people to drop dead is ridiculous hyperbole that isn't backed up by any evidence.

The guy never said it literally caused people to drop dead. He said it could cause a condition in people who already had clogged arteries/heart conditions. I know there are a whole load of other things that would also cause people with those kind of issues to drop down dead too. He just said weed was one of them.

 

[noobasuar]

Funny how marijuana users in this thread have been able to discuss the topic intelligently while non-users keep spreading the same misinformation in every weed thread including this one.

There should be a study to see whether marijuana users or non users are more intelligent. Going by this thread the conclusion is really easy to see.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

so let's say all of the research in the article is true.

sounds like an easy solution would be to:
-buy from places that don't overdo it with exotic breeds/batches
-use a fucking vaporizer, since putting any smoke into your lungs is bad
-admit that it still pales in comparison to readily available cigarettes and alcohol and isn't worth such extreme measures being taken against it as some might suggest

 

[SocksAndShoes]

Straight from Journal of American Cardiology
Marijuana use may also precipitate the development of myocardial infarction in patients with coronary artery disease.

Yeah, so exactly what I've been saying.

 

[G.ZZZ]

This has no source that i can find but report on actual increased cardiac attack risk:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117399

In particular:

The scientists say that this five-fold marijuana risk is a little higher than the risk for sexual intercourse, about the same as that for other types of strenuous exercise, and much less than the risk caused by cocaine, which increases one's chance of having a heart attack 25-fold.


Other studies i've found didn't separate smoking cigs from joints, and most of them didn't correlate anything of substance.

Literally the only study i've found of a certain significance was the one about the 10% decrease in car accidents in the five year after legalizing marijuana in the states where it became legal.

 

[Loki]

.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What? I don't assume anything. I've seen enough articles. I choose to believe some of these people are doing actual, unbiased research. Crazy, I know.

Who are these people you are believing? Don't hold out on the thread.

 

[Matugi]

Straight from Journal of American Cardiology

Source

You could also post the quote in between:

"Most case reports describe relatively young patients in their second or third decades with normal coronary arteries or minimal atherosclerosis, suggesting that marijuana does not lead to the development or acceleration of atherosclerotic damage in healthy adults. Such atypical presentation may explain the paucity of reports on marijuana-associated myocardial infarction despite widespread use of the drug."

 

[TrafalgarLaw]

Funny how marijuana users in this thread have been able to discuss the topic intelligently while non-users keep spreading the same misinformation in every weed thread including this one.

There should be a study to see whether marijuana users or non users are more intelligent. Going by this thread the conclusion is really easy to see.

Thanks for drive-by posting. FYI no one is interested in who uses and who doesn't, that's not what the discussion is about.

 

[GeordieMark]

Funny how marijuana users in this thread have been able to discuss the topic intelligently while non-users keep spreading the same misinformation in every weed thread including this one.

There should be a study to see whether marijuana users or non users are more intelligent. Going by this thread the conclusion is really easy to see.

Let me guess. You are a marijuana user too? For the record I smoked weed for more than 10 years, and lots of it too. I've made many trips to Amsterdam and fully advocated legalisation, trotting out the many benefits of weed to all who would listen.

I've also seen a fair few people suffer because of weed, either directly through health issues, or indirectly through spending all their cash on it, or just wasting their lives due to spending all their time being high. This is why I no longer smoke it.

I know you could put that down to irresponsible use, and it's true. It is. But from my experience people that abuse weed do so because they are convinced by the argument that it's generally a good thing, and better than alcohol, so they don't see the harm they are doing.

The problem with the argument about weed is nobody seems prepared to listen to the opposing view. The pro-weed guys dismiss any evidence that it can be bad, and the anti-weed folks won't accept that it is possible to smoke weed and not go crazy or start shooting up heroin a week later.

 

[Rafterman]

Funny how marijuana users in this thread have been able to discuss the topic intelligently while non-users keep spreading the same misinformation in every weed thread including this one.

There should be a study to see whether marijuana users or non users are more intelligent. Going by this thread the conclusion is really easy to see.

It might have been...until you made this post, now it's not so clear.

Let me guess, you smoke pot?

 

[samus i am]

Caffeine can kill you. Too much caffeine and you can literally drop dead. Too much of anything can kill you. Tell the UN that scare tactics like these just aren't going to cut it anymore.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

He's right, though. Non-users aren't presenting compelling arguments. It really is just a lot of misinformation, guesses, and vague correlations.

 

[PrimaNocta]

lol at this article. Enough with the scare tactics.

 

[lord quas]

complete non-sequitur. The argument was about cannabis causing heart attacks. And cool strawman at the end there.

How exactly, for argument's sake, is cannabis inducing a heart attack different from inducing a psychotic episode? People having a predisposition for either might not be aware (not all) of the potential hazard of smoking marijuana.

Saying it was God's gift might have been hyperbolic (not referring to anyone specific in this thread), and I apologize for that. Still, the comparison to someone being diabetic is kind of out of place.

 

[Fenderputty]

Do tell. And no, I wouldn't prescribe it. If one was already doing pot, I probably would allow it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24614667/


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgBrOYaVOk

 

[cackhyena]

Who are these people you are believing? Don't hold out on the thread.

You can bother to research it yourself. I believe in you.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You can bother to research it yourself. I believe in you.

What is this? You said you've read articles. What articles? You said there are people doing research that you believe over the things people have said in this thread. What research?

 

[Matugi]

How exactly, for argument's sake, is cannabis inducing a heart attack different from inducing a psychotic episode? People having a predisposition for either might not be aware (not all) of the potential hazard of smoking marijuana.

Because I wouldn't raise a fit about somebody linking marijuana to psychosis/other psychological effects because all psychoactive drugs have effects on the brain. It's in the name.

 

[Poimandres]

The real problem is the completely one sided nature of drug education.

Marijuana is completely, and unfairly, villainised in almost every drug education program. This might be effective for some people but anyone with half a brain can see through the obvious deceit.

This makes people far less likely to pay attention to any real health risks associated with marijuana. Like most drugs it's either vilified or celebrated, and it's difficult to find truly balanced information.

 

[nateeasy]

Drugs are bad mmmkay

 

[CornBurrito]

Yes it can alleviate pain, along with a hundreds of other painkilling or modulating substances that don't require you to burn and inhale it. It's not a treatment of choice.

My grandmother is taking prescribed THC pills. You don't need to smoke a pill...

 

[googleplex]

Smoking Marijuana will give you cancer and other related health-risks.

So there's that.

The United States has been "studying" marijuana use for years, and we have yet to hear a concrete number on Marijuana related deaths per year.

Spoiler

the number is 0

 

[mcflyOS]

Do you have any insight on these assertions you have or do you loathe teenagers for a reason you made up in your head?

I was a teenager once myself, and I was surrounded by teenagers. What's more insightful than that?

maybe they are apathetic because they are stuck in a system that if you don't go to college you're fucked, and if you do go to college you're going to be in debt for years to come. Maybe that concept causes apathy, but it's prolly the weed

It's probably the weed, among the other stupefying bad habits idle people enjoy to pass their time, while wondering why people engaged in actual useful pursuits are more successful and financially secured than they are.

I, like most everyone else who went to college had student debts, if you seek a degree that's in demand, you'll be able to pay off that debt, if you take photography, or female studies, then don't expect to pay off your debts. In other words, if you did what previous generations did and went to university to acquire the knowledge to get gainful employment instead of the cliché modern invention of "finding oneself", you'll be alright. I know everyone told you you were special, but that doesn't matter, it's what you do, rather than who you are, that is of any actual value to people.

A little over a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce wrote:

ACADEME, n. An ancient school where morality and philosophy were taught., ACADEMY, n. (from ACADEME) [1.] A modern school where football is taught. [2.] Originally a grove in which philosophers sought a meaning in nature; now a school in which naturals seek a meaning in philosophy.

Imagine what'd he'd have to say now...

UNIVERSITY, n. A modern school where drunk girls get fondled in dormitories when they're supposed to be studying gender and equality in Film.

You know who doesn't treat university like it's one giant orgy? Indians and Chinese. You want to know who's going to make up the professional class in the years to come, and the majority of high earners?

I'm pro-American, in case you get the wrong impression, I just find it really sad how far it's fallen.

 

[Boem]

The problem with the argument about weed is nobody seems prepared to listen to the opposing view. The pro-weed guys dismiss any evidence that it can be bad, and the anti-weed folks won't accept that it is possible to smoke weed and not go crazy or start shooting up heroin a week later.

This is very true, and exactly what I tried (and apparently failed) to say a couple of pages back. There's a middle road here, but the biggest pro- and anti-weed advocats just make intelligent discussion impossible. I've given up on posting here because this topic is just a bit too personal for me. It puts me in a very bad state of mind, and as we are having guests over I just can't do that right now. I suspect it would influence my posting behavior negatively as well. Really can't stand how quick people are to ridicule those who don't share their view, without actually bothering to look up some research themselves. My attempts to talk about this stuff comes from a very personal space, and I just want to make sure that people don't make the same mistakes I did. I can see my views aren't wanted here, and I wish I could keep a more level head when it comes to this stuff. I can't, so I'll stay out of this. My apologies.

To recap my opinion on the matter: I do believe that weed should be legalized and that adults should be able to choose what to do with their free time as they please. I also think that general public should be educated on the possible (mostly mental) health consequences more. This thread kinda proves it for me.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

I was a teenager once myself, and I was surrounded by teenagers. What's more insightful than that?



It's probably the weed, among the other stupefying bad habits idle people enjoy to pass their time, while wondering why people engaged in actual useful pursuits are more successful and financially secured than they are.

I, like most everyone else who went to college had student debts, if you seek a degree that's in demand, you'll be able to pay off that debt, if you take photography, or female studies, then don't expect to pay off your debts. In other words, if you did what previous generations did and went to university to acquire the knowledge to get gainful employment instead of the cliché modern invention of "finding oneself", you'll be alright. I know everyone told you you were special, but that doesn't matter, it's what you do, rather than who you are, that is of any actual value to people.

A little over a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce wrote: Imagine what'd he'd have to say now...

You know who doesn't treat university like it's one giant orgy? Indians and Chinese. You want to know who's going to make up the professional class in the years to come, and the majority of high earners?

I'm pro-American, in case you get the wrong impression, I just find it really sad how far it's fallen.

Is it me or is this post going to end up as one of those 'this will end well....' type of deals?

 

[CornBurrito]

I was a teenager once myself, and I was surrounded by teenagers. What's more insightful than that?



It's probably the weed, among the other stupefying bad habits idle people enjoy to pass their time, while wondering why people engaged in actual useful pursuits are more successful and financially secured than they are.

I, like most everyone else who went to college had student debts, if you seek a degree that's in demand, you'll be able to pay off that debt, if you take photography, or female studies, then don't expect to pay off your debts. In other words, if you did what previous generations did and went to university to acquire the knowledge to get gainful employment instead of the cliché modern invention of "finding oneself", you'll be alright. I know everyone told you you were special, but that doesn't matter, it's what you do, rather than who you are, that is of any actual value to people.

Also what evidence do you have to suggest that people in the past didn't get degrees in liberal arts? Hell, in the past you could get a decent job with a bachelor's in anything. Or even with no degree at all. That time is gone. You're wrong to suggest that people in the past got degrees in only the most sought after fields. They very often didn't. Unless you have proof otherwise.

A little over a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce wrote: Imagine what'd he'd have to say now...

You know who doesn't treat university like it's one giant orgy? Indians and Chinese. You want to know who's going to make up the professional class in the years to come, and the majority of high earners?

I'm pro-American, in case you get the wrong impression, I just find it really sad how far it's fallen.

Anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing. You use words like "probably" without any hard data.

And student debt is effecting everyone, including people with STEM degrees. Biology, chemistry, physics, and math are still needed. But good luck paying off your student debt because jobs in those fields aren't lucrative at the bachelor's level. Meanwhile not everyone has the talent to do computer science or engineering. And those people will be unable to find employment without a college degree. What should they do exactly?

"UNIVERSITY, n. A modern school where drunk girls get fondled in dormitories when they're supposed to be studying gender and equality in Film."

Love the casual misogyny you express.

 

[kswiston]

I'm surprised they didn't pull out the ol' "TODAY'S MARIJUANA IS 60x MORE POWERFUL THAN IT WAS IN THE 60s." It's master spook trolling of boomers to make them scared of their kids smoking weed.

I know it's not really that important to the topic, but I wanted to point out that the children of boomer parents are mostly in the 25-45 year old range. Youngest boomers are 50 years old. Some are pushing 70. It's the people who grew up in the 80s that they should be targeting. Those are the ones with teen and preteen children

 

[mcflyOS]

Anecdotal evidence isn't very convincing. You use words like "probably" without any hard data.

And student debt is effecting everyone, including people with STEM degrees. Biology, chemistry, physics, and math are still needed. But good luck paying off your student debt because jobs in those fields aren't lucrative at the bachelor's level. Meanwhile not everyone has the talent to do computer science or engineering. And those people will be unable to find employment without a college degree. What should they do exactly?

"UNIVERSITY, n. A modern school where drunk girls get fondled in dormitories when they're supposed to be studying gender and equality in Film."

Love the casual misogyny you express.

It's humour. Remember when people could be cheeky without it being considered a violation of human rights?

 

[FUME5]

A lot of ifs, buts and maybes.

 

[speculawyer]

Well, there will be downsides to pot legalization. That said, I think the up-sides (tax revenue, stop wasting police/courts/prison money on pot, etc.) will exceed the down-sides (health problems, addiction, etc.)

 

[MikeDown]

I think the only thing this report really proves is that the more people who have access to it then the more chances there is that something could go south, which is kinda a no brainer.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Well, there will be downsides to pot legalization. That said, I think the up-sides (tax revenue, stop wasting police/courts/prison money on pot, etc.) will exceed the down-sides (health problems, addiction, etc.)

I realize this is going to be a stupid question, but when legalizing pot have they ever taken into consideration that it may effect people around them?

Like, for instance, a father who smokes weed in the same room as his kid? People always talk about "contact highs" and how would that even effect a child.

Yeah, I know it's dumb fucking question but it's just something I wondered about.

On that note, I agree with you on the legalization.

 

[TheContact]

The United States has been "studying" marijuana use for years, and we have yet to hear a concrete number on Marijuana related deaths per year.

Spoiler

the number is 0

Let me just say that I'm pro legalization, but It's silly to say that a marijuana related deaths are 0 annually. Someone with a low tolerance driving while high can be worse than being drunk, not to mention that inhaling smoke, regardless of what is burning, is putting some pretty poisoning shit into your lungs.

Spoiler

so be sure to vaporize and not drive if you're not capable of it

 

[marrec]

Let me just say that I'm pro legalization, but It's silly to say that a marijuana related deaths are 0 annually. Someone with a low tolerance driving while high can be worse than being drunk, not to mention that inhaling smoke, regardless of what is burning, is putting some pretty poisoning shit into your lungs.

Spoiler

so be sure to vaporize and not drive if you're not capable of it

I'm 100% pro legalization as well, but to say that there are zero hazards to burning something and then inhaling it's carbonated particulates into your lungs and cutting off oxygen.

Or that we know for sure that THC is as 'harmless' as proponents claim. We simply don't have a scientific consensus yet.

 

[CornBurrito]

It's humour. Remember when people could be cheeky without it being considered a violation of human rights?

I don't recall doing that.

And please explain, what about your joke required it to only call out college females for sexual promiscuity?

 

[squidyj]

59% OF WHAT?