Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[Coach]

I'd say there's a pretty good mix of people in this thread. Can anyone point to someone claiming that using MJ in large quantities has health benefits? Has anyone claimed that smoking does anything but hurt your lungs and effect other bodily functions? I've seen multiple people on this page say they wish a bunch of people would stop making these claims, but I'm not seeing it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'd say there's a pretty good mix of people in this thread. Can anyone point to someone claiming that using MJ in large quantities has health benefits? Has anyone claimed that smoking does anything but hurt your lungs and effect other bodily functions? I've seen multiple people on this page say they wish a bunch of people would stop making these claims, but I'm not seeing it.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'm on your side. Peter's comments that it's harmful are in fact true but no one isn't arguing it isn't, just that society is better off legalizing from a cost-benefit analysis.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Yes you're whole 1 study. There are thousands of cases that show marijuana to be a miracle cure for certain ailments.

Not to pick on this guy but it's statements like this that people are referring to. Obviously a lot more wide spread once you start talking to hard core weed enthusiasts, who I don't think Bandwagon is.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Man his point is that weed isn't this magic medicine that cures all that people like to crow about. It has some benefits but it gets talked about sometimes like its apples or exercise and it's not. No one talks about alcohol being like that, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. People recognize alcohol for what it is, a mind altering substance that's unhealthy in large regular doses. It would just be nice for people to talk about weed the same way because it is the exact same

Except it's not the exact same...

Weed isn't a magic medicine that cures all, agreed. It is a medicine that is a preferred method of treatment for many ailments however. Ever heard the term 'Medical' marijuana? I sure as hell haven't heard the term 'Medical' alcohol or anyone claiming that it is good for anything but giving you temporary confidence.

I myself have used it medically in place of Advil for headaches/hangovers/back pain. I've used it in place of T3 for wisdom teeth removal. It's also a major stress reliever for me after exhausting days of work.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

More evidence that legalization greatly increases marijuana use in the young.

https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content...ruary-2016.pdf

Found one study on increase usage among young people. It fails to look at alcohol and other drug usage over the same time period. It fails to discuss whether or not the rate of reporting in states where marijuana is legal is higher than the rate of reporting in other states. It acknowledges that much more research needs to be done on the affects. So what you have there is data without context that has been correlated to P.05 significance without any repetition. And even it doesn't like the states current stance on pot.

Based on the data shown you already have an underlying increase in the pot youth on Americas youth independent of legalization. In legalized markets the rate of increase of youth use is roughly double.

Also when some makes a big glossy propaganda piece it immediately puts into question the validity of their research. I will have to read the links in it to the actual research.

[corporatejay]

Why don't you just use advil and T3? Those are probably a lot safer.

[polak]

Tylenol is pretty terrible for your liver.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'm on your side. Peter's comments that it's harmful are in fact true but no one isn't arguing it isn't, just that society is better off legalizing from a cost-benefit analysis.

Not directed anyone specific. Just the people who seem to think the vast majority of pot users are under the impression that using it regularly is having health benefits. Almost everyone I know smokes weed. From 40+ bank advisors to early twenties burnouts. Not a single one has claimed this.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why don't you just use advil and T3? Those are probably a lot safer.

Wow this is easily the dumbest post of the day.

Anything you can OD on is not safer. If nothing else, these prescription pills can mess up your liver if mixed improperly or you take too many of.

T3 also messes with your brain by the way. I would sooner drive on weed than on T3's.

[GGG]

I read somewhere that Tylonol would not be approved today as an OTC drug do to its side affects. (I know great source)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm still waiting for a link to someone claiming it's as healthy as riding a bike or eating a bowl of fibre or whatever that doesn't come from some crackpot website like SpiritScience.com or NaturalNews.com

I would like to believe that there is massive "silent majority" of people who enjoy it on an infrequent basis, much like alcohol, that aren't the kind of twat strawmen you guys are railing against.

Also it's kind of interesting to be on the other side of a literal "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument for once. I notice no one has used the macros yet however.

The old strawman has been thrown around a lot in here, but this is pretty classic.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

The old strawman has been thrown around a lot in here, but this is pretty classic.

Peter12 is my best bro, making all my posts visible to everyone who has me on ignore.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why don't you just use advil and T3? Those are probably a lot safer.

Do you think you might get that impression because it comes in a sealed container, with ingredients listed, and it's contents are strictly regulated by governing bodies?

(I know you;re for legalization, this is more for the benefit of those who aren't, but would use Tylenol or Advil on the regular).

Also, the notes above re: Effects of OTC painkillers.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Not to pick on this guy but it's statements like this that people are referring to. Obviously a lot more wide spread once you start talking to hard core weed enthusiasts, who I don't think Bandwagon is.

I appreciate what your trying to say, but I'm not being as sarcastic as you might think.

Rather than give you 1000 sources, I'll give you a local one. The term Miracle was definitely used at least once and rightly so.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=658095

Mother says her 9 year old used to have over 100 seizures a day. Ever since she was on medical marijuana she was seizure free for 18 months.

She also was able to stop taking her 30-40 pills per day (ouch that sucks for pharmaceutical companies).

AHS is no longer supporting prescription medical marijuana to children for epilepsy and this mother is once again fearing for her child. She would rather get it illegally and risk going to jail than watch her child die.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

I read somewhere that Tylonol would not be approved today as an OTC drug do to its side affects. (I know great source)

During the last decade, more than 1,500 Americans died after accidentally taking too much of a drug renowned for its safety: acetaminophen, one of the nation’s most popular pain relievers.

Acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol – is considered safe when taken at recommended doses. Tens of millions of people use it weekly with no ill effect. But in larger amounts, especially in combination with alcohol, the drug can damage or even destroy the liver.

Davy Baumle, a slender 12-year-old who loved to ride his dirt bike through the woods of southern Illinois, died from acetaminophen poisoning. So did tiny five-month-old Brianna Hutto. So did Marcus Trunk, a strapping 23-year-old construction worker from Philadelphia.

The toll does not have to be so high.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long been aware of studies showing the risks of acetaminophen – in particular, that the margin between the amount that helps and the amount that can cause serious harm is smaller than for other pain relievers. So, too, has McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the unit of Johnson & Johnson that has built Tylenol into a billion-dollar brand and the leader in acetaminophen sales.

Yet federal regulators have delayed or failed to adopt measures designed to reduce deaths and injuries from acetaminophen overdose, which the agency calls a “persistent, important public health problem.”

The FDA has repeatedly deferred decisions on consumer protections even when they were endorsed by the agency’s own advisory committees, records show.

In 1977, an expert panel convened by the FDA issued urgently worded advice, saying it was “obligatory” to put a warning on the drug’s label that it could cause “severe liver damage.” After much debate, the FDA added the warning 32 years later. The panel’s recommendation was part of a broader review to set safety rules for acetaminophen, which is still not finished.

Four years ago, another FDA panel backed a sweeping new set of proposals to bolster the safety of over-the-counter acetaminophen. The agency hasn’t implemented them. Just last month, the FDA blew through another deadline.

Regulators in other developed countries, from Great Britain to Switzerland to New Zealand, have limited how much acetaminophen consumers can buy at one time or required it to be sold only by pharmacies. The FDA has placed no such limits on the drug in the U.S. Instead, it has continued to debate basic safety questions, such as what the maximum recommended daily dose should be.

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ly-as-directed

A chubby girl with bright blue eyes and blond hair, Brianna had suffered from a cold and fever for several days. A nurse suggested Tylenol. He scribbled the dose on a piece of paper: one teaspoon every four hours.

Within days, Brianna was lying comatose in a pediatric intensive care unit — her life threatened not by a deadly virus or rare disease, but by an accidental overdose of one of the nation’s most popular over-the-counter pain relievers. Her liver had been destroyed by a toxic byproduct of the medicine that was supposed to help her.

The Huttos were blindsided. Like many Americans, Christina and Eric Hutto had trusted Tylenol, a brand synonymous with safety. Tylenol, as the advertisements proclaimed, was the No. 1 doctor-recommended brand of pain reliever; the one hospitals used most; the one used by moms decade after decade.

Yet Tylenol’s pediatric products had the potential for lethal confusion — and this was no secret to federal regulators or McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the division of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures the drug.

For at least 15 years, until 2011, McNeil continued selling two versions of Tylenol for young children, despite knowing that parents and even medical professionals mixed them up, sometimes with serious consequences. And the Food and Drug Administration failed to intervene.

The two types of pediatric Tylenol had a counterintuitive difference. Drop for drop, the strength of Infants’ Tylenol far exceeded that of Children’s Tylenol.

In addition, the active ingredient in Tylenol, acetaminophen, has what the FDA deems a narrow margin of safety. The drug is generally safe at recommended doses, but the difference between the dose that helps and the dose that can cause serious harm is one of the smallest for any over-the-counter drug.

By confusing the pediatric products and administering too much of the infants’ version, parents could inadvertently overdose their children. Other manufacturers also made two children’s products with different concentrations of acetaminophen.

Between 2000 and 2009, the FDA received reports of 20 children dying from acetaminophen toxicity – a figure the agency said likely “significantly underestimates” the problem. Three deaths were tied directly to mix-ups involving the two pediatric medicines. Such errors may have caused some of the other deaths, but the agency has acknowledged that its data lacks sufficient detail to determine the precise cause.

Similar gaps exist in data for non-fatal liver injuries. The FDA has estimated it may capture less than 1 percent of such cases. Still, one small study found that confusion between the two pediatric products was the most common reason for overdoses among kids with acetaminophen-related liver damage. A study conducted by McNeil found that about one child a year on average was hospitalized because of mix-ups involving its drugs.

Such tragic accidents are among the reasons that between 2001 and 2010, there were about twice as many deaths annually associated with acetaminophen than with all other over-the-counter pain relievers combined, according to data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers. On average, more than 150 Americans die accidentally each year from acetaminophen poisoning, most of them adults, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows. Tens of thousands more are hospitalized for overdoses.

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...e-of-confusion

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The premise is valid, but filling in the rudimentary aspects are where it can start to fall apart.

Canada's population under 20 is about 7,800,000, and that includes people over 18. And people aged 15-19 is under 3 million (which is probably the group most likely to begin smoking). It'd be nice if 14 was included. Anyone starting earlier than that is a HUGE outlier IMO. So I would venture to guess that the population at risk is closer to 5 million.

Your math also assumes that EVERYONE in this subset begins to smoke, which is obviously not the case (if the graph from a few pages regarding Colorado is applied, only about 6-10% of youths smoke weed).

And then, on top of that, while the statistics show a relationship, it is still "a chance" Not everyone in that final subset will end up with a mental health issue.

And, while mental health is no joke, were talking about a range from minor depression to full on psychosis. Only a few of these things require full-blown monitoring and pose a danger to other people.

Lastly, I think you have to assume that improved education programs will weed out a good chunk of kids who may have otherwise started. IE I never started smoking cigarettes because that black lung the DARE people showed us is burnt into my brain. But no one ever went into the negative effects of weed (which I didn't start smoking until I was 19), and even though logic dictates smoking anything is going to do something at least similar to your lungs, much of the information at the time was that "it's really not that bad, and certainly not as bad as cigs" the latter is true, the former, not so much.

Not to mention that a good chunk of tax revenue will be dedicated to education and mental health programs, so that also offsets your final number, and might even end up being a net benefit (ie, even though we may spending more, we overall spend less because of the revenue generated).

You are focusing too much on the precise numbers. I picked 10 million out of a hat, and was not using it as a baseline representation of the Canadian population of teenagers.

I was merely illustrating that an increased rate of mental illness causes an increased burden on society. What that number ends up being will invariably depend on the population affected.

The flippant disregard for mental illness is troubling. It's like saying in regard to cigarettes "well, some cigarette caused cancers are less awful than others."

The point is the action causes the result, and while the result has varying degrees of impact to the individual and society, why are we sanctioning something that universally has a negative aggregate impact on society?

Personally, I don't think I should have to be responsible as a tax payer for paying for pot heads who increase their risk of mental illness. But perhaps my lack of socialist tendencies is clouding my opinion.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Wow this is easily the dumbest post of the day.

Anything you can OD on is not safer. If nothing else, these prescription pills can mess up your liver if mixed improperly or you take too many of.

T3 also messes with your brain by the way. I would sooner drive on weed than on T3's.

Don't be an #######. You can "OD" on water.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Don't be an #######. You can "OD" on water.

Historically, dihydrogen monoxide is more toxic than marijuana. So I'm not sure what this statement proves.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why don't you just use advil and T3? Those are probably a lot safer.

The codeine in a T3 is quite addictive

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Don't be an #######. You can "OD" on water.

Yes you can OD on water (more easily than you think) because it dilutes the amount of electrolytes required for your body to function. Perfectly safe in moderation though.

The difference between 'safe' and 'what the hell did I just do to my liver' when it comes to Tylenol is not very substantial.

I could smoke weed non stop for 2 days and sustain no long term damage, but likely short term memory loss. The only way you can OD on weed would be to die from smoke inhalation having a lack of oxygen. The American government did this to monkeys by shoving the equivalent smoke of 10 thousand joints down it's throat at once. Not a very practical way to OD.