Is it not entirely possible a drug and method of consumption which stresses the cardiovascular system increases odds of an adverse cardiovascular event?
There seems to be a mad rush on people being able to do research and be first to publish, so I'd expect some results to be questionable. However, isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work? Do a test, release the results, others verify/validate. If something comes up questionable, refine the test, release the results, verify/validate again.
I know from my own anecdotal experience that d9 (reg THC) gives me incredible anxiety but d8 does not. My mental health is better than it was before I had access to it. I don't want to be a guinea pig, but we've been hearing fear, fear, fear for the last six decades.
Without wanting to sound all pot-head hippy, this plant seems to be pretty magical. If it turns out that the "good" stuff can be used by removing the one part that gets you high, then we've lost so much potential because of fearmongering. It's infuriating that in the 20th century into the 21st we were no better than the days of Capernicus for stopping science because of fear.
This transcends politics, humans are dumb fearful critters.
It's hard work to fight against it, but the first step is recognizing it all over the place and in your own thinking.
Recognizing it and trying to correct for it is one of the core bits of the rationality community (imo).
Skepticism is good, but if you find yourself preferring one outcome over another then you should be extra critical of stuff that supports your preferred outcome because you're more likely to want to give it a pass.
Similarly you should be more willing to entertain stuff that goes the other way because you're more likely to incorrectly dismiss something that's actually true.
All that oceanplexian's response proved "so nicely" is that people will sometimes fall for ad hominem assertions and try to engage them.
This in itself dismisses the credibility of the proponents in my mind.
The funny thing is you don’t see this with alcoholics. They know what they’re doing is bad and admit it easily but can’t stop.
I am completely open to the concept that cannabis consumption is not always healthy for people, depending on delivery method, quantity, and the state of mind of the individual.
I also, almost without qualification, will dismiss the health risks as a rationale for continuing its general prohibition. And (wait for it)... yeah, it's because there are myriad substances and behaviors that can cause harm, but we don't outright ban them.
So no, I'm not saying "don't tell me how it could be harmful" - especially as an occasional user, I want to know as real studies (and trusted anecdotes among friends) come about. Just don't use evidence of some adverse effects as a justification for prohibition, which politicians and puritans are quick to attempt.
In my 20s I knew people who used it. I used it myself occasionally. Hell I even dated a dealer once. No problems. Pro legalisation.
In my 30s some of those people drifted away or grew out of it. Apart from a few. They ended up burning their relationships for it due to it being tied intimately to their identity.
In my 40s now I’ve seen the last few people I know who used it suffering through mental health problems. On top of that there have been a few specific events including someone rolling a car onto my front lawn through my fence when speeding. They were prosecuted for drug driving.
I see a lot of people who haven’t tread this path yet and were where I was. This slow decline and the realisation that there are people who genuinely are unable to act rationally and put others at risk suggests that apart from medical use the net benefit to society is negative.
Now the real negative basis is mental health and at least here in the UK there isn’t the care or support for anyone already. Adding cannabis usage to that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Ultimately the long term study is something we’re not going to have the answers to for over 30 years as we see the impact on society. Hopefully by then it won’t be another fuck up like adding lead to gas.
But even ignoring that effect, most people smoke it and smoking is monumentally bad for you regardless of what you are smoking.
People seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that things they favor have negative aspects and things they don’t have merit. The world isn’t just good and evil, most of it is striking a balance between positives and negatives and we all need to get better at doing this objectively instead of picking a side and afterwards finding a justification.
We can definitely debate the methods.. but the findings from this growing body of evidence should probably be the ‘default’ stance, until we see more causal or controlled correlational evidence pointing the other way.