Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

It's rather interesting to me, that every time one of these studies or articles is published, people crawl out of the woodwork shouting denials and rejection.

People, for some reason, want to cling to this naive idea that cannabis consumption has zero negative effects.

Can't we all just accept that it is indeed harmful to your body and brain, especially if used habitually? Continue to use it as you wish, but understand it very well is causing long term harm, just as any other sin-of-choice! Is that really so rejectionable?

View on HN

There exists a political climate where any negative effects are seized upon as evidence that cannabis should remain banned, however inapplicable (for example because they are a small study of chronic users after a week's withdrawal). In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views.

> In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views.

That's what parent poster is asking for.

Any time I post about cannabis on HN i have to include the line "I am strongly in favour of drug legalisation" or tediously predictable replies accusing me of shilling for the government appear.

And my position - that for some people smoking large amounts of cannabis is probably a bad idea (especially if they've young; have a history of psychosis; or have a family history of psychosis) - doesn't feel particularly un-nuanced.

It's almost as if the government had been lying about it for decades and people became suspect of any claims being made.

But you're right, I'm really interested in learning the actual science around it so I'm happy that work is being done. I suppose that perspective doesn't lead to the need to comment.

And it's not only the "sins-of-choice" that cause long term harm. Life itself has quite a few negative effects and is the leading cause of death, after all.

I guess you missed the articles that say marijuana has positive effects?

There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the positive and, similarly, I ask why are you focused on the negative?

There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. :)

> I ask why are you focused on the negative?

Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes.

These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different?

> There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out.

Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.

The claims of harmlessness are based on decades of widespread use without even silly overblown anecdotal stories of people being harmed (he took a giant hit and jumped out the window!)

You are being too absolutist. Nothing is "harmless".

I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision.

My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose?

Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.

One group that self-medicates is people with psychosis.

People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population.

Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication.

That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds.

This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population.

It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire.

So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people.

When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea.

People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis.

[1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.

I think the evidence that's out there shows cannabis consumption has negative effects for developing minds. And there is some evidence to indicate that burning plant material inhalation is bad (although this is far from as factual as with cigarettes, for example).

Generally, the studies that indicate long term negative effects use a limited population or confounders (such as amphetamines in this case). Those studies indicate one method/combination is harmful, but (AFAICT) are not generalizable to most users.

I am happy to be shown wrong, but have yet to come across a generalizable study that shows long term negative health effects of cannabis consumption.

I don't think anybody is shouting "denials and rejection."

Usually what I see is people pointing out that whatever new negative result is no worse than other substances and activities that are legal.

I don't think it is really that "harmful" if you eat/vaporize it. That being said, it certainly does reduce motivation/focus when used to excess.

> I don't think it is really that "harmful" if you eat/vaporize it.

This is exactly the responses I was talking about.

The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects. You're still getting THC by eating/vaporizing it! (otherwise it'd be a pointless activity).

Consumption method is pretty irrelevant, other than less carcinogens when not smoking it (the only appreciable difference between consumption methods).

> The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects.

This is also just a single study with some questionable methods. It's just as ignorant to blindly dismiss this study as it is to blindly accept it.

> This is also just a single study with some questionable methods

How many studies need to come out before folks start to accept that maybe their favorite pastime isn't so harmless after all?

It's fairly obvious introducing chemicals to your body long term will have undesirable side effects.

In the end, it doesn't matter how harmful or harmless this substance is. People will continue to use and abuse it regardless. But we should not reject modern studies simply because we want to believe old data.

No, that's not fairly obvious! "Chemical" in this context is meaningless... so you're basically claiming that eating anything is harmful to the pristine state of the body uncontaminated by "chemicals" (aka molecules).

I don't think consumption method is irrelevant, cannabis contains more cannabinoids than just THC. Methods that concentrate for THC in oils will have less of these. Vaporizors that heat the cannabis to specific temperatures will release a different subset of them and your body will metabolize them differently and at different rates when consumed. I notice a range of mental and physical differences when I consume marijuana that are dependant on the preparation and method of consumption.

You misunderstand. A reduction in motivation isn't inherently harmful - it's only society's value system that causes you to view it a "harm". A society where people valued relaxed socializing more might view a reduction in compulsive need to be "doing stuff" as a benefit.

Lung cancer, on the other hand, doesn't have a positive reference frame.

I've noticed similar crawling out of the woodwork when the harmful effects of coffee, sugar, and other sinful addictive drugs are discussed.

"Can't we all just accept"—why? Because it's a "sin"?

> "Can't we all just accept"—why? Because it's a "sin"?

You willingly cause harm to your body and brain daily. I choose to drink too many energy drinks, knowing full well all the chemicals and additives are not good for me.

The point is, I don't go around claiming energy drinks are totally harmless simply because I enjoy them. Of course they're not good for me.

Accept cannabis causes harm, and then make an educated choice to continue using or not. I just ask that we be realistic about this - it's a foreign chemical being introduced to your body.

But you can't base an argument on "please accept my claim as fact," is what I mean.

I'm not aware of a clear scientific consensus that cannabis is harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com