The Great Debate: Legalization

[Zeusthecat]

But the "not dangerous when mixed with other drugs" thing is what's holding me back. I mean, I don't think that's a valid reason to keep it illegal, or not do it, not by any stretch, but BUT I don't think you can say that without properly researching it, right?

 

I'll admit that there is definitely a lack of research in that area. But I still think it is noteworthy that there is no data to suggest that weed mixed with any other drug produces a fatal combination. There are lots of other drugs that can be fatal in and of themselves but there is no indication that there are any drugs that aren't normally fatal that suddenly become fatal when mixed with weed.

 

That is the big problem with it being illegal though. It makes it tough to properly research these types of things and there isn't a huge wealth of data to go off of. So yeah, definitely agree with you in that regard.

[elvaq]

Yeah, I mostly just try to avoid any pharmaceuticals as much as possible. It's just the old "don't do anything that doesn't grow in the ground" rule for drugs.

 

Plus with my new Deus Ex Vape Pen the side effects are like... minimal

[Mangela Lansbury]

And I think people are kind of overselling this whole "FDA approval" thing. Just because something is FDA approved doesn't mean it's safe or that it's even any safer than something that isn't FDA approved. That whole system is kind of whacked and is easily influenced by special interest groups.

Consider the countless drugs produced by big pharmaceutical companies that were FDA approved and later taken off of the market because of the deaths and other horrible side effects they caused. Then think of all the resulting class action lawsuits. There are countless examples of this.

I'm close to someone who works with drug testing, some of which is for FDA approval. The FDA is a joke, by all accounts. FDA approval is more indicative of your ability to work through a bureaucracy and adhere to a set of rules, most of which are more concerned with protecting people from lawsuits more than real safety. Safety is, of course, a concern for the FDA, but it's massively understaffed and incredibly complex. Something not being FDA approved can be meaningless. The amount to which the FDA is a system to be gamed is especially apparent if you look at the manufacturers of all cannaboids that have made it to market

[osmosisch]

I mean, sure, I understand that it's not illegal because it's unsafe. But the illegality of it does contribute significantly to a lack of research, wouldn't you agree? 

I live in a country where weed's at least quasilegal and there's been no issues except for drug tourism from neighbouring countries, and a mild tendency to exaggerate schizophrenia in heavy users.

[Twig]

I live in a country where weed's at least quasilegal and there's been no issues except for drug tourism from neighbouring countries, and a mild tendency to exaggerate schizophrenia in heavy users.

Hmm, fair enough. FAIR ENOUGH!

[Merus]

I think 'no-one has ever died from weed overdose' and 'it is impossible to die from weed overdose' are two different things. Of course, the apparatus to test this out would run the risk of the user dying from suffocation, not cannabinoid overdose...

 

I'm close to someone who works with drug testing, some of which is for FDA approval. The FDA is a joke, by all accounts. FDA approval is more indicative of your ability to work through a bureaucracy and adhere to a set of rules, most of which are more concerned with protecting people from lawsuits more than real safety. Safety is, of course, a concern for the FDA, but it's massively understaffed and incredibly complex. Something not being FDA approved can be meaningless. The amount to which the FDA is a system to be gamed is especially apparent if you look at the manufacturers of all cannaboids that have made it to market

 

Drug testing is broken, as well - there's a strong incentive to find ways to perform the tests so that the treatments look good and the side effects don't obviously manifest, and most tests only prove that the drug is better than placebo (i.e. it actually does something) and not the actual question, which is finding the best treatment.

 

Again, this is one reason why it's useful to have a good doctor on your side, because they're more capable of finding data from other countries where regulation is... well drug regulation's pretty bad everywhere, really, but where drug regulation is seen as a public good and not a drain on the free market. The FDA was pretty badly broken by the HIV epidemic, where they were caught against ensuring treatments were safe, and dealing with patients who were angry, mobilised, and willing to put literally anything in their bodies. This compounds with the problem where the FDA is also the agency responsible for withdrawing drugs from sale, which they're usually loathe to do because it implies the FDA made a mistake, and almost always results in a "patient's group" (often secretly funded by the pharma company) causing a big stink because they can't get their life-saving pills any more.

[juv3nal]

That you cannot OD on weed by smoking it is probably true, that no one has OD'd on it ever might be true, but that you can't OD on it at all is false.

LD50 for THC is a thing that exists, folks:

 

666 MG/KG ORAL-RAT LD50; 482 MG/KG ORAL-MOUSE LD50; 525 MG/KG   ORAL-DOG LDLO; 29 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-RAT LD50; 42 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MOUSE   LD50; 128 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MONKEY LDLO; 373 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-RAT   LD50; 168 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-MOUSE LD50;

 

source: https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/thc_data_sheet.shtml

 

edit: incidentally, that's talking about pure thc though so probably not going to get that outside of some lab setting, but still. that makes it about 4 times safer than caffeine, but still not impossible if taken orally or if there's some emergent market I'm unaware of in mainlining the stuff.

[Zeusthecat]

That you cannot OD on weed by smoking it is probably true, that no one has OD'd on it ever might be true, but that you can't OD on it at all is false.

LD50 for THC is a thing that exists, folks:

 

 

source: https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/thc_data_sheet.shtml

 

That's why I tried to be careful to only talk about it only in terms of weed consumption. Yes, you can OD if you consume enough pure THC. No, I don't think it is possible to consume enough weed in a short enough time to OD because even with the strongest strains, the THC content is too low.

 

And really, once you get to the point that you are talking about OD'ing on pure THC, it kind of becomes irrelevant to the argument of whether or not weed should be legal as you would really have to make a conscious effort to OD and is incredibly unlikely to happen by accident. You are probably more likely to OD on water which people have actually died from.

[juv3nal]

That's why I tried to be careful to only talk about it only in terms of weed consumption. Yes, you can OD if you consume enough pure THC. No, I don't think it is possible to consume enough weed in a short enough time to OD because even with the strongest strains, the THC content is too low.

 

And really, once you get to the point that you are talking about OD'ing on pure THC, it kind of becomes irrelevant to the argument of whether or not weed should be legal as you would really have to make a conscious effort to OD and is incredibly unlikely to happen by accident. You are probably more likely to OD on water which people have actually died from.

 

Sure but in a world where edibles are a thing, there's the potential for concentrating refinement processes. I have no idea what's on the market or what could potentially in the future be on the market. *shrug*

Would you get 100% pure THC out of that? No, but I'm pretty sure you could easily get stuff that is more potent than any plant and LD50 is just that LD50. I'm not going to roll the dice on a dosage that's, say, LD5 would you?

 

(I do want to stress this is no reason for not legalizing as it is bunches safer than things like caffeine)

 

edit: as another random bit of trivia, since I brought up edibles, the LD50 of capsaicin in mice is 47.2 mg/kg but you can buy pure capsaicin crystals

[Zeusthecat]

Gotcha. That's a fair point.

[Architecture]

It seems like overdosing on THC is vastly preferable to overdosing on capsaicin.

[osmosisch]

the LD50 of capsaicin in mice

Fucking hell, that's one of the least ethical experiments I've ever read about.

[Griddlelol]

 

Kind of. It is physically impossible to consume enough weed to actually overdose and die. It has never happened. And to add to that, there is no drug that, when mixed with weed, becomes a fatal combination. Ambien, and other drugs like it on the other hand? You can overdose and people have overdosed on it and it can become toxic when mixed with other drugs.

 

And I think people are kind of overselling this whole "FDA approval" thing. Just because something is FDA approved doesn't mean it's safe or that it's even any safer than something that isn't FDA approved. That whole system is kind of whacked and is easily influenced by special interest groups.

 

Consider the countless drugs produced by big pharmaceutical companies that were FDA approved and later taken off of the market because of the deaths and other horrible side effects they caused. Then think of all the resulting class action lawsuits. There are countless examples of this.

 

It's also impossible to consume enough aspirin, but that also has a leathal dose. While it is technically possible with ambien, it's not feasible that, I as a 90kg man, would eat 8000 tablets. 

 

While I say "FDA" approval, I really mean clinical research. 

The key thing you've pointed out here, is that they were withdrawn. That's huge. If something does harm, it is taken away. How many cases of THC related side effects would be needed to withdraw that? Or would there be a huge outcry if it was suddenly "re-illegalised" because it was deemed dangerous. I feel it'd be rather like alcohol. Impossible to make illegal because it's so...standard. Despite it being incredibly dangerous to public health. 

There's also the issue that just because it can't cause death, doesn't mean it's safe. There are plenty of other potential side effects that could warrant it being banned. My point was that focussing on death is disingenuous, if you don't include comparative data on other widely consumed drugs - they all have an LD50.

 

I'd like to reiterate that I am on your side Zeus. I think weed should be legal. It's incredibly safe to smoke and eat, plus if someone wants to do something potentially dangerous, that's on  them. Not the state. 

 

 

Yeah, I mostly just try to avoid any pharmaceuticals as much as possible. It's just the old "don't do anything that doesn't grow in the ground" rule for drugs.

 

Plus with my new Deus Ex Vape Pen the side effects are like... minimal

 

I feel like this is incredibly irrational. "out of the ground" doesn't make something any more safe than "out of the lab." Many pharmaceuticals are from biological sources anyway. Just because it has a brand name, doesn't mean it's not from a plant. Most pharmaceuticals are based on the original biological chemicals, with only minor changes to alter the efficacy, potency or reduce their toxicity. 

 

I'm close to someone who works with drug testing, some of which is for FDA approval. The FDA is a joke, by all accounts. FDA approval is more indicative of your ability to work through a bureaucracy and adhere to a set of rules, most of which are more concerned with protecting people from lawsuits more than real safety. Safety is, of course, a concern for the FDA, but it's massively understaffed and incredibly complex. Something not being FDA approved can be meaningless. The amount to which the FDA is a system to be gamed is especially apparent if you look at the manufacturers of all cannaboids that have made it to market

 

I don't really know much about the FDA, I really used it as a replacement for research. You're probably right about that. 

 

 

That you cannot OD on weed by smoking it is probably true, that no one has OD'd on it ever might be true, but that you can't OD on it at all is false.

LD50 for THC is a thing that exists, folks:

 

 

source: https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/thc_data_sheet.shtml

 

edit: incidentally, that's talking about pure thc though so probably not going to get that outside of some lab setting, but still. that makes it about 4 times safer than caffeine, but still not impossible if taken orally or if there's some emergent market I'm unaware of in mainlining the stuff.

 

This is exactly my point.

 

David Nutt is a rather good scientist who counselled the UK government on drug classifications. Unfortunately he was fired because his evidence didn't agree with their rhetoric. He was famously quoted for saying (paraphrased) "fewer people die from ecstasy than horse riding."

I think his classification is pretty good, so here's his blog if anyone wants to read it. https://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/

[osmosisch]

While I say "FDA" approval, I really mean clinical research.

Tangentially, as someone who works in this field (drug regulation/systematic review) currently, 'clinical research' is not exactly a saving grace either, unfortunately. The gold standard is seen as randomised clinical trials, which weed out their participants to an extreme degree, therefore only really giving information about a drug's effect on a particular tiny subset of the general population. That's not even mentioning the myriad incentives and methods for the companies performing the trials to massage the data and its presentation.

It's probably better than nothing, but overall the system's pretty fucked. As systems tend to be.

[Griddlelol]

Tangentially, as someone who works in this field (drug regulation/systematic review) currently, 'clinical research' is not exactly a saving grace either, unfortunately. The gold standard is seen as randomised clinical trials, which weed out their participants to an extreme degree, therefore only really giving information about a drug's effect on a particular tiny subset of the general population. That's not even mentioning the myriad incentives and methods for the companies performing the trials to massage the data and its presentation.

It's probably better than nothing, but overall the system's pretty fucked. As systems tend to be.

 

As someone who also works in the area, but on the academic side, the clinical research isn't perfect, I agree. The difference is, that it's there as opposed to anecdotal evidence presented in other areas. I'd much rather base my opinions on evidence than what a lay person has read on the internet.

Half the problem with the industrial side is how they've started in vitro drug screening as opposed to in vivo. It's ridiculous that they thought this would save them money...

 

Tangentially, the free access of information on the internet is not always a good thing. Too many lay experts and self diagnoses lead to a ton of misinformation and people telling the experts they're wrong simply because they read an article they didn't understand, written by another lay person who read a primary source they didn't understand. 

 

I had a discussion with my partner's grandmother over her self diagnosis of "histamine intolerance." Her diagnosis was based on a rash she had. While the symptoms of histamine intolerance can include a rash, so does practically every single allergic disorder out there. Instead of visiting a doctor (which is free I should point out), she decided to stop eating certain foods. Based entirely on her self research, lack of critical thinking skills and bias towards "toxins in foods."

[osmosisch]

Agreed on all points.

[Ozzie]

We'd be going anecdote vs anecdote here, but I don't really feel like you can truly smoke yourself stupid, but if you have a tendency to be dumb, lazy, and bad at school then weed sure does enable those traits. 

 

One of them was incredibly smart in some ways, he was a damn good programmer already at his age. I think he was great in school, too, though he didn't give a fuck about it. Lazy...I don't think that is a word that would have been an appropiate description of him at the time. Maybe it's simplistic of me to just lay the blame on weed, but his mind certainly dulled while he smoked it at the time.

The other guy wasn't necessarily the brightest and a slow thinker to begin with, yes.

[Twig]

which weed out their participants to an extreme degree

ehehehe

[JonCole]

Well I just bought weed legally in Colorado and I have to say that it's probably the most surreal thing I've experienced in quite a while.

[Dewar]

I realized after spending all that time to get one of the first batches of legalized weed in Washington that I haven't even finished the first package, let alone looked around for more. Not really my bag I guess.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Has anyone looked into how the legalization of weed has affected participants in the shadow economy? Like, has it removed a viable income stream from marginalized populations, pushing them towards things with higher minimum sentences and more associated violence, had no effect, has no one looked?

[2PacBestSerbFastRapWizard]

I have encountered one pot smoker that I knew was a pot smoker who was a cool dude who was not in any way part of Drug Culture. I've definitely run into my far share of tedious people who are largely fixated on getting high, but I think that might be a youth thing more than a drug thing, honestly.

 

Stoner "culture" can be really grating, its kind of a circlejerk thats been around longer than the internet

 

To be fair though, youve probably met quite a few people that smoke say a bowl of indica in the evening instead of a glass of wine, but would never tell anyone or broadcast their...tastes precisely because they dont want to be associated with the highly annoying and often arrogant 420smokeit crowd

[miffy495]

Stoner "culture" can be really grating, its kind of a circlejerk thats been around longer than the internet

 

To be fair though, youve probably met quite a few people that smoke say a bowl of indica in the evening instead of a glass of wine, but would never tell anyone or broadcast their...tastes precisely because they dont want to be associated with the highly annoying and often arrogant 420smokeit crowd

 

My entire family. My stepdad is a professor of Economics and smokes more than anyone I know, but pretty much just as an afterdinner thing.

[2PacBestSerbFastRapWizard]

lol i am confuse ignore this