Sponsored by

PuffItUp Dynavap VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.

Meds Science Says: What’s known and not known about marijuana

Baron23

Well-Known Member
Science Says: What’s known and not known about marijuana

By Malcolm Ritter | AP May 24 at 5:46 PM
NEW YORK — A new marijuana study joins a limited record of scientific knowledge about the harms and benefits of pot.

The research published Wednesday is the first rigorous test of a marijuana compound in treating a certain form of severe epilepsy. It found that an ingredient of marijuana — one that doesn’t give pot smokers a high — reduced the number of seizures in children.

In the U.S., more than two dozen states allow medical use of marijuana. Federal drug regulators have not approved marijuana itself, but they have allowed man-made, chemically related medicines to treat loss of appetite in people with AIDS, and nausea and vomiting caused by cancer therapy. A marijuana extract is sold in Britain for nerve pain and other problems from multiple sclerosis.

In January, a U.S. advisory committee concluded that the lack of scientific information about marijuana and its chemical cousins, called cannabinoids, poses a risk to public health. The experts called for a national effort to learn more.

In a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, they also rounded up what is known. Here are some of its conclusions.

There’s strong evidence that marijuana or cannabinoids:

— Can treat chronic pain in adults

— Can ease nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy

— Can treat muscle stiffness and spasms in multiple sclerosis as measured by what patients say, but less strong evidence if the changes are measured by doctors​

On the other hand, it also found that pot smoking may be linked to:

— Risk of developing schizophrenia and other causes of psychosis, with the highest risk among the most frequent users

— Risk of a traffic accident

— More frequent chronic bronchitis episodes from long-term use

— Lower birthweight in offspring of female users

There’s some evidence that pot or cannabinoids may:

— Improve short-term sleep in people with some medical conditions

— Boost appetite and ease weight loss in people with HIV or AIDS

— Ease symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and improve outcomes after traumatic brain injury​

Similarly, some evidence suggests pot use may be linked to:

— Triggering a heart attack

— An increased risk of developing a lung condition called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

— Pregnancy complications when used by the mother

— Impaired school achievement and outcomes

— Increased suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, especially among heavier users

— Risk of developing bipolar disorder, especially among regular users.​

There’s not enough evidence to know if marijuana or cannabinoids can:

—Treat cancer

— Ease symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome

— Help with movement problems associated with Parkinson’s disease

— Improve mental health outcomes in people with schizophrenia

Similarly, there’s not enough evidence to know if marijuana is linked to:

— Increased risk of heart attacks over time from chronic use

— Development of post-traumatic stress disorder

— Changes in the course or symptoms of depression disorders

— Development or worsening of asthma

— Accidents or injuries on the job​

Comments anyone? I, for one, applaud a true scientific approach to the benefits and detriments of MMJ. I have never been comfortable with viewing MMJ as a universal cure all (and one without any downside) which is the impression I sometimes get from some online comments on same. To me, better to have real facts then wishful thinking.
 

momofthegoons

Vapor Accessory Addict
Staff member
While there were a few negatives I thought might be a stretch, but might be possible, two things in their list really bother me:

Risk of developing bipolar disorder, especially among regular users.
— Development of post-traumatic stress disorder
I just don't see how.... and it would need some pretty compelling evidence for me to believe it.

I'd like to see these statements qualified as well:

Lower birthweight in offspring of female users
Pregnancy complications when used by the mother
I'm not advocating it; but I used marijuana during both pregnancies. My children were both above average birth weight and size. And there were no complications that arose... I know that could be subjective to me and my pregnancy, however. I found it helped me through morning sickness (which was really all day/night sickness).

I will say the one thing they didn't list is that a negative can be the munchies. I have to fight them regularly. :dog:


 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
While there were a few negatives I thought might be a stretch, but might be possible, two things in their list really bother me:




I just don't see how.... and it would need some pretty compelling evidence for me to believe it.

I'd like to see these statements qualified as well:




I'm not advocating it; but I used marijuana during both pregnancies. My children were both above average birth weight and size. And there were no complications that arose... I know that could be subjective to me and my pregnancy, however. I found it helped me through morning sickness (which was really all day/night sickness).

I will say the one thing they didn't list is that a negative can be the munchies. I have to fight them regularly. :dog:
hI Mom - well, without the report itself, we cannot validate its data sources, methods or conclusions. I merely posted the article (but all of those quotes say Baron23!! :yikes::rofl:)
 
Last edited:

herbivore21

Well-Known Member
hI Mom - well, without the report itself, we cannot validate its data sources, methods or conclusions. I merely posted the article (but all of those quotes say Baron23!! :yikes::rofl:
This is because they didn't cite the sources. The problem with this article is that it is anything but scientific. It doesn't cite, I will almost guarantee that it doesn't quote it's sources accurately (find me a news source that ever quoted a scientific article with complete accuracy and I'll probably die of shock lol).

Those bipolar and PTSD claims for example are incredibly likely to be conflated correlation with causation. Many people with PTSD and Bipolar medicate symptoms with cannabis, this does not mean cannabis causes these conditions. CBD is in fact known to reverse the lasting brain changes which take place as a result of ongoing trauma and stress in the hippocampus.

General news articles are so shitty at talking about cannabis, they've taught us this for decades, if not centuries!
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
This is because they didn't cite the sources. The problem with this article is that it is anything but scientific. It doesn't cite, I will almost guarantee that it doesn't quote it's sources accurately (find me a news source that ever quoted a scientific article with complete accuracy and I'll probably die of shock lol).

Those bipolar and PTSD claims for example are incredibly likely to be conflated correlation with causation. Many people with PTSD and Bipolar medicate symptoms with cannabis, this does not mean cannabis causes these conditions. CBD is in fact known to reverse the lasting brain changes which take place as a result of ongoing trauma and stress in the hippocampus.

General news articles are so shitty at talking about cannabis, they've taught us this for decades, if not centuries!
Indeed, my friend. But its an article from AP shown in the WoPo website and this is all you can expect from that sort of publication. To evaluate this truly, we need the actual report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine....which I don't have and which I'm sure will cost $$ to access.
 

herbivore21

Well-Known Member
Indeed, my friend. But its an article from AP shown in the WoPo website and this is all you can expect from that sort of publication.
Couldn't agree more on that brother.

To evaluate this truly, we need the actual report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine....which I don't have and which I'm sure will cost $$ to access.
Actually, generally you would look for what is called a meta-analysis study. A meta-analysis will look at the body of research literature on a given topic and provide an overview of the findings, showing all working and citing all sources. Many disciplines have a journal known as the 'Annual Review of (INSERT SUBDISCIPLINE HERE)' in which many of these studies appear each year. Moreover, a lot of meta-analyses are published in other scholarly journals.

You are sadly right to point out that reading this kind of literature generally costs $$$$$ to read, and this is a constant sticking point in the communication of scientific knowledge. The vast of it exists only in walled gardens that prevent it from getting out to the masses in more than a trickle-feed of mostly inaccurate and poorly paraphrased publications by people with no scientific credentials. It is a damned shame man, since of course everybody should be able to access the best current scientific information on these topics! It benefits us all!
 

Sponsored by

PuffItUp Dynavap VGoodiez 420EDC
Top