Perception of Marijuana as a 'Safe Drug' Is Inaccurate

[MrFungus420]

It is commonly believed here that the average strength of street dope is much, much higher now than it was in the 70s, due to efficient selection of high THC yield varieties by growers, so any bad effects to susceptible individuals may be worse...

Commonly believed, but bullshit.

"Mid-grade" weed is about 5-8%. if you get below about 3%, it is below the threshold of having an effect...it just won't give you a buzz. It's basically industrial hemp at that point.
The most potent pot comes in at about 25%. Those strains are rare and expensive.

Even if it were true that pot is significantly more potent now, so what? All that means is that less is needed to achieve your buzz. There's not a standard serving size that you consume, you smoke it for effect. If it's really potent, you're good after a few hits and are done, if it's not very potent, you might end up smoking an entire joint for the same effect.

Now, as to the OP, it is less inaccurate to say that marijuana is a safe drug than it is to say that caffeine or aspirin is a safe drug. Relatively speaking, marijuana is one of the safest drugs that we know of.

[hadespussercats]

Now, as to the OP, it is less inaccurate to say that marijuana is a safe drug than it is to say that caffeine or aspirin is a safe drug. Relatively speaking, marijuana is one of the safest drugs that we know of.

Hm. I've never heard of caffeine driving anyone loony.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Vapes are the way to go. All the THC - none of the tar, CO, benzene and other products of burning.

Basically, breathing in smoke is bad for you - whatever is burning. Smoke contains hundreds of different compounds many of which are known carcinogens.

[hadespussercats]

Vapes are the way to go. All the THC - none of the tar, CO, benzene and other products of burning.

Basically, breathing in smoke is bad for you - whatever is burning. Smoke contains hundreds of different compounds many of which are known carcinogens.

I had a psychologist who recommended a vaporizer. "Off the books" as it were.

I liked my bong, though. I'd load it up with ice. It felt oddly healthful, at the time.

[mistermack]

Years ago, Marijuana was extremely variable. I've grown a fair bit in my long distant past, and some of it was hardly worth smoking, and some was potent. It was very hit-and-miss.
Generally, what you get now is far stronger on average. It's not so much evolved, as people have selected the strongest strains, and weeded out the weakest, so the seed that's available now has virtually none of the weak strains in it.

So it is far stronger now, on average, because the weak stuff doesn't get grown any more.

I've also noticed, on the tv, when they show drug busts, that the bags full of weed consist of the stronger parts of the plant, the flowering heads. Years ago, they used to chuck the lot in.

I don't regard Marijuana as a safe drug. Especially if kids start young, I've seen evidence of long-term damage.
The younger they start, the more damage it does. If they don't start till they are in their late teens, then it probably is fairly safe.

[hadespussercats]

Years ago, Marijuana was extremely variable. I've grown a fair bit in my long distant past, and some of it was hardly worth smoking, and some was potent. It was very hit-and-miss.
Generally, what you get now is far stronger on average. It's not so much evolved, as people have selected the strongest strains, and weeded out the weakest, so the seed that's available now has virtually none of the weak strains in it.

So it is far stronger now, on average, because the weak stuff doesn't get grown any more.

I've also noticed, on the tv, when they show drug busts, that the bags full of weed consist of the stronger parts of the plant, the flowering heads. Years ago, they used to chuck the lot in.

I don't regard Marijuana as a safe drug. Especially if kids start young, I've seen evidence of long-term damage.
The younger they start, the more damage it does. If they don't start till they are in their late teens, then it probably is fairly safe.

I like the South Park take on that-- that when you hit your teens, you can get bored pretty easily, and marijuana makes it easy to deal with being bored. But boredom is the time when people try new things, get creative, explore new possibilities to find things that fire their interest. But if they just go ahead and get stoned instead, they miss out on all that.

Not a life or death situation. Not false fears to get people to fall in line. Just an acknowledgement that marijuana can get in the way of ambitions and dreams, especially when people start young.

[Jason]

How do you relate marijuana to a legal drug like alcohol?

Or are you one of those people who deny that something which is very obviously just as much a psychoactive as many illicit substance is not a 'drug'?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

How do you relate marijuana to a legal drug like alcohol?

Or are you one of those people who deny that something which is very obviously just as much a psychoactive as many illicit substance is not a 'drug'?

WHo was that aimed at? I doubt many here would take that view. ALcohol is certainly psychoacrtive.

[mistermack]

How do you relate marijuana to a legal drug like alcohol?

Or are you one of those people who deny that something which is very obviously just as much a psychoactive as many illicit substance is not a 'drug'?

I'm certainly no expert, and I have never made a point of reading what studies have been done.
But just from the evidence that I've encountered along the way, it seems that alcohol is similar, in that it's dangerous to start too young.
But of course, alcohol is much more addictive than weed, so that alone puts it into a different bracket.
Alcohol is hugely more harmful, it kills many more people, but it's slightly complicated because the people who DON'T get addicted, suffer virtually no ill effects at all. In fact people who drink small amounts live longer than teetotallers, on average.

[hadespussercats]

How do you relate marijuana to a legal drug like alcohol?

Or are you one of those people who deny that something which is very obviously just as much a psychoactive as many illicit substance is not a 'drug'?

I'm certainly no expert, and I have never made a point of reading what studies have been done.
But just from the evidence that I've encountered along the way, it seems that alcohol is similar, in that it's dangerous to start too young.
But of course, alcohol is much more addictive than weed, so that alone puts it into a different bracket.
Alcohol is hugely more harmful, it kills many more people, but it's slightly complicated because the people who DON'T get addicted, suffer virtually no ill effects at all. In fact people who drink small amounts live longer than teetotallers, on average.

I bet that's true of weed-smokers too-- those that have no ill effects might actually benefit from moderate long-term use.

[mistermack]

I bet that's true of weed-smokers too-- those that have no ill effects might actually benefit from moderate long-term use.

Maybe, although any kind of smoke is probably a negative. The actual drug in weed might be of some benefit, if you could eat it or drink it in small quantities, but smoking it is probably harmful to some degree to the lungs.

[Jason]

Make tea from the leaves. It's a different kind of high, but pretty good. I've never tried brownies, mostly because I tend to eat more than I should when high anyway.

The buds are what you smoke, or 'flowers' if you prefer. A bong filters through water, the same basic idea as a hookah but much simpler, and makes for a much less 'smokey' smoke. Since I'm a smoker, of tobacco, the smoke from weed doesn't bother me at all. It's actually quite smooth by comparison. Smoother = less particulates. Of course I only smoke the primo stuff that usually doesn't make it to distribution. Because of my circle of friends. Poor quality marijuana (poor harvesting, poor drying, poor storing, often compounded by improper aging) is much harsher than tobacco and thus contains much more particulates (as they are what cause you to cough and hack like a kid taking their first drag on a cigarette).

[Blind groper]

Interesting that on a forum called rationalia, there are a heap of people who practice rationalisations rather than rational thinking.

To those people who smoke pot and think it is harmless, think again. The best you can say is that it is probably no worse than alcohol, and definitely better than tobacco. However, it is not harmless.

The fact that it contains tiny amounts of a chemical that may (emphasize may) work against cancer, does not alter the fact that the amounts of cancer causing chemicals are present in amounts orders of magnitude greater. Smoking marijuana almost certainly increases the risk of lung cancer by a substantial margin.

However, to avoid being a hypocrite, let me admit I enjoy ethanol. This chemical certainly causes far more harm to society than marijuana does. Whether it harms the individual, on average, more or less remains to be seen.

My personal view is that marijuana is a 'soft' drug, like tobacco, alcohol, and ecstasy. It causes harm, but not sufficient harm to justify it being made illegal. Our respective governments, if they had any sanity (doubtful) would legalise it, regulate its sale, and make taxes from those sales.

[Warren Dew]

My personal view is that marijuana is a 'soft' drug, like tobacco, alcohol, and ecstasy. It causes harm, but not sufficient harm to justify it being made illegal. Our respective governments, if they had any sanity (doubtful) would legalise it, regulate its sale, and make taxes from those sales.

Not selling any of it to anyone under the legal drinking age might be a good idea too.

[Blind groper]

Warren

That falls under the description of "regulate its sale". However, I am sure you are right.