Research shows marijuana isn't all it is cracked up to be
More and more science comes out exposing the dangers of marijuana use.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Do not deceive yourself with talk about freedom when only considering one side. To do so is to ignore the real freedoms of the rest of us which are infringed upon by the violations of impaired individuals pursuing their "freedom".
Do you consider intentionally deceiving one's self to be immoral? Is it okay to pursue a lie one creates for one's self or is there a moral obligation to pursue reality?
It's true that intentionally deceiving oneself is objectively immoral -- it's the opposite of rationality (as expressed as honesty) -- but "objective" does not mean "intrinsic", it's not duty, and one never knows what kind of context dropping someone may have in mind in or for misapplying the principle.
All moral questions involve soul-searching and introspection, which is what the question was designed to invoke. Whether or not something is moral is the entire study of philosophy. But there are few (if any) instances of equivocacy in morality - where something can be both moral and immoral at the same time. If you believe that this question is one of them, I would invite you to respond. I couldn't think of a non-binary response but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
That is a bit of an overstatement. One branch of philosophy, ethics, deals with morality and that, like all the branches of philosophy, are the most general that can be known about reality in that all particulars are abstracted out. None of the study of philosophy indicates that a concept is reifiable, but must remain some kind of biological happenings in and among cells chemically or electrically in the brain.
Your assumption that the moral act is the right act and nothing to do with act of making a choice. When one makes a choice to act, one can not know whether the act has some outcome not forseen by one's limited knowledge. When that act turns out to be wrong then the act is considered as immoral. When the act was not chosen, then the act is considered as amoral and the results could be seen after the fact as being either right or wrong in its result. There is nothing in existence which prohibits one from making a wrong decision whether morally or amorally. Wrong decisions may or may not result in punish the actor, but will be the cause of some aspect of the future. My favorite example of a large number of people with the wrong choices is the results of slavery. Those acts have resulted in nearly all the present people to have been born due to those bad choices of the past. I for example would not have been born due to slight or large differences in timing and places of conception or even the existence of my parents due to the effects of slavery. Nearly all present African Americans alive today would not be without the past created by slavery. Slavery was extremely immoral, if not mostly done amorally, since it is difficult to act in a morally right manner and have any substantial self.
I was pissed at Rush a couple of weeks ago when he stated that unless one has god in his life, one cannot be moral because one would not be able to know right from wrong. His action there was moral but wrong with regard to me as an atheist. It was moral because he most probably consciously chose to take his action of make such a statement.
Of course a single action cannot be both moral and immoral by some particular standard, may not even be made morally but was done amorally as are most actions taken by humans.
More importantly, it is all about the why behind one's actions - not necessarily the action itself. It is not the action which makes it moral, but the principal involved which defends the action as moral.
"Since the essence of morality is making a conscious choice..."
Here I'm going to disagree. The essence of morality is knowing what is right and wrong (and optimally why) and basing one's choices off that knowledge. If one does not know whether or not something is morally right or wrong, they act out of ignorance regardless of morality. Ignorance does not justify the action, however. Reality doesn't care if you know why something is right or wrong. It is going to reward you according to your choice - neither the intent nor the knowledge make any difference whatsoever.
"One can make a conscious choice and be wrong by another persons standards but still be moral by his standards."
Only if one accepts that moral standards are not universal or somehow mutable. I hold that if one is going to accept the primacy of individual rights, those depend on nothing short of universal, immutable moral standards - standards which apply to everyone individually and equally. If one holds to moral relativity, I have zero duty to recognize or respect someone else's rights: they don't apply to me because I'm the only one who gets to set my own morality. If you go down that rabbit hole, you never get out. I don't really care about "my" standards or "your" standards. I'm more interested in the standards Reality sets - standards which are universal and immutable.
Now back to the question. The reason I ask the question is because it forces people to think about whether or not they are attempting to justify their actions by backtracking into a "moral" position which suits them, or if they are starting from a point of moral integrity and working down from there.
If I recall right, Rand said that one should judge another by his actions and not for the unknown content of his brain since each individual brain has different experiences and gains knowledge by different methods. Morally, if one believes one is acting immorally, the belief is with respect to one's own mental content and not with the mental content of the immoral one. That might seem to be a rather relative view of morality, but in the real world, one can only go by ones own knowledge and if there is time to do so, try to convince the believed to be immoral one to mend his thinking.
Rand uses 'man qua man', which means man's good is what is good for the ideal man, for determining right from wrong. The trouble is that nature does not instill some kind of innate knowledge about what the ideal man's needs and actions should be. Those actions proper to man have to be discovered since a man is born tabula rasa without knowledge. each person has to decide to gain his own knowledge from which to make choices of action. Since most people do not believe that his fellow human knows what is right, some intelligent persons though what ever knowledge and with whatever intelligence that they might possess,decide to make explicit a set of rules of right and wrong for those whom they do not agree. one can learn those rules and check whether they agree with whatever ideal man that they might accept as true to nature.
You might say that there is some kind of absolute rules to fit everyone in his choices of action, but there is no way to know whether the rules are correct or whether a mistake in thinking made.
Is that what you are referring to? Her emphasis in this article was on the objectivity of the conscious versus psychologizing the subconscious, not different experiences or methods of gaining knowledge.
"Moral judgment must be objective, i.e., based on perceivable, demonstrable facts. A man's moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious." -- "The Psychology Of 'Psychologizing'".
Again, you are arguing moral relativism here. If you argue moral relativism, you can not simultaneously argue equality under the law, equality of rights, etc., since they all depend on a universal recognition of morality which begins externally to the individual. Moral relativism starts with the internal and that's why one feels the need to attempt to invent and justify a third position.
Reality is not dependent on our experiences, our knowledge, or even our intent. Reality simply doesn't care. It doesn't adjust gravity because we didn't intend to trip on that box. It doesn't change the universal constant of pi and declare that a nice round number is so much more convenient than an irrational one so as to make it easier for grade school children to calculate. There isn't a single aspect of Reality we can change simply by wishing it were different.
"You might say that there is some kind of absolute rules to fit everyone in his choices of action, but there is no way to know whether the rules are correct or whether a mistake in thinking made."
Again, this is another statement wholly dependent on moral relativity. Either there is a Reality independent of the individual human being which the individual can explore and become acquainted with through experimentation, choice and consequence, or it is a fiction. That is the danger of embracing a morally relativistic view. Do we start out knowing everything? No. But again to get back to my original question: do we have a moral responsibility to seek out Reality and adhere to it - or do we just get to deceive ourselves into thinking we can make it up as we go along?
As I said, the essence of morality is choosing to act. Choosing to act is moral and if that act is not a furtherance of one's life it is immoral. Those actions that just happen due to physical laws and their expression in chemistry, biology, and psychology are nearly all amoral acts. E.g., the activities of the subconsciousness are amoral, with the self consciousness determining what is good or bad. Even that with regard to choosing to act is giving consciousness bit too much credit. It appears that the subconscious begins an action and the conscious believes that it started the action. The way I see it is that mind is more a gatekeeper which has the job of inhibiting actions determined to be bad at least in a certain situation.
Reality does not jump in and tell a mind what a right action is. Minds must discover right from wrong and thus create knowledge of right and wrong and thus create a moral code. There is no moral relativism there but the recognition that each self must operate or live relative to other selves, i.e., with respect to other selves. As with physical nature where all that exist are objects with identities recognized by certain discovered properties with space and time being relative measurements with regard to chosen standard units, morality is a measurement system used by some living things where the measurement is with regard to chosen units of right or wrong. While the choice of units are arbitrary, they must be in regard to what exists. Try to think of relative as meaning measurement with regard to other objects and not as just arbitrary other than in the arbitrary choice among possible units for the particular phenomenon under consideration.
The moral universalist reverses the sentence thus: actions are justified according to a pre-existing moral code.
"Reality does not jump in and tell a mind what a right action is. Minds must discover right from wrong..."
Agreed. But you seem to extrapolate from this that morality is what we make it to be, rather than that which Reality has already set forth. By your argument, morality is an invention of action - a result. The opposing view holds that morality is that which underlies and validates action - a cause. Put another way, either morals are the values which impel us to act (my interpretation) or morals are the results of arbitrary values derived only after we act (your interpretation). Upon the former (universal) approach, we may derive laws which take as their axiom a universal equality of men based on their existence - not their actions. With the latter (relative) approach, we are left constantly re-evaluating morality because of changing axioms.
"While the choice of units are arbitrary, they must be in regard to what exists."
If the choice is arbitrary, they were invented by man and not a result of Reality itself. If they were a result of Reality, they exist and are characterized independent of any human choice - arbitrary or otherwise. They merely await our discovery.
"Try to think of relative as meaning measurement with regard to other objects and not as just arbitrary other than in the arbitrary choice among possible units for the particular phenomenon under consideration."
If we measure one randomly selected thing against another randomly selected thing, we can derive just about any conclusion desired. By contrast, if we seek an objective comparison, we must begin with an immutable, non-arbitrary, universal standard against which to measure anything and everything else.
Moral relativism holds that the goalposts are constantly changing while the individual is constant. Moral universalism holds that the goalposts are set and unchanging and it is the individual which is the variable.
After spending more than a decade submersed in healthcare and studying epidemiology I can safely say that weed is lower on the list of real concerns...
If you do a search, many "results" come up.
Considering that many scientific "facts" have proven to be false. whom do you believe?
My guiding light is not to use any artificial; product, Hemp or anything.
Just use good old common sense.
I'm in an Objectivist's quandary. I don't use this drug but since it's been legalized I am getting some very good offers to work in the industry. I know it helps some people, and makes a lot of people worthless. I suppose, though, the same could be said for bacon...or video games...haha....
I wouldn't know what to do if I couldn't bring it home. Beans would be positively boring and Coq au Vin would be impossible without it. ;^)
Hemp products are different because the plant isn't used to get high, it's used as an oil, for fuel, clothing and building stuff.
Henry Ford built a car of hemp and powered by hemp.
The use of Hemp oil goes waaaaaaay back into ancient history.
If smoking marijuana causes short term memory loss, then what does smoking marijuana cause?
Side effects- does m. have side effects? Yes. Have these been studied impartially and with care, no, well not adequately. It is not easy for researchers to do this without putting aside serious biases in opinion, funding, and the 'side-effects' of producing unpopular research.
With legal restrictions loosening m. is getting some support for medical use, good, and bad if that support goes off into making use a fashion statement.
From my recent experience, my diet was inadvertently making my very sick. Inflammation is one way. And things like MJ would help to alleviate some of those symptoms.
She has worked with people on pain and sleep, and has a special protocol for sleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E020n...
I say this in hopes that you might find alternative relief if possible. One quick test is if a 3 day FAST improves your symptoms. If it does, the rabbit hole opens up pretty quickly.
I am NOT against medical MJ, but I am against people under 21 partaking, as my experience included a loss of "access" to certain facts, as well as a touch of cognitive impairment after one particular summer!
At that time the progressivist bias of those publications was not as strong as it is now. Now, Scientific American and New Scientist are leaders in carbon change alarmism. In this, irony is lost. The one-sidedness of research and publication is immensely strong as not only government but big business and the entire chattering classes need to show how much they want to save the planet.
So, where there are clear biases in research and publication, reserve your judgment.
Now you did not ask for my opinion but here it is-
like Abaco I think weed is low on the list of real concerns.
The choice of a unit of measurement is arbitrary relative to reality but once chosen must be fixed and convertable to any other unit for the measurement of the same phenomenon, for example, measurement of distance can have units of inches, feet, yards, centimeters, meters, wave lengths of certain frequencies of light, light years, parsecs, seconds, etc., the one used can be arbitrarily used and convertible to the others as long as kept as a standard. One example for a unit being set arbitrarily is that of the speed of light which was set in the 1980s. An even number of meters per second was picked from the best measurements available at the time and other units adjusted to that unit. Another example is that of the atomic mass unit choice which required adjustments to mass of of certain elements. Another is the unit of mass which was arbitrarily set to a particular metallic mass but now is being replaced by another unit because the original was not constant. I am not saying that all units are commensurable but rather that some unit is picked as convenient for measurement of an aspect of reality. There is nothing in reality which is built in saying that such and such unit must be chosen for differentiation of objects to be subsumed under the concept in an individual brain. The unit must just be consistent to objective reality and is not dictated by reality but is chosen to be convenient to the individual mind forming the concept. In a society, units are usually standardized for convenience.
"If we measure one randomly selected thing against another randomly selected thing, we can derive just about any conclusion desired. By contrast, if we seek an objective comparison, we must begin with an immutable, non-arbitrary, universal standard against which to measure anything and everything else".
First of all, we do compare randomly selected objects subsumed in different concepts with one another. but can place them in a wider concept. One can perceive, but need not do so, that some similarity exists between objects and picks some unit of measurement to differentiate the objects of a similar genus and form a concept. Comparison of say cats and dogs does not mean that they can not both belong to some common genus such as animals, mammals, four legged creatures or animals, animals liking to groom themselves, etc.
Moral universalism requires that selves agree upon some aspects of reality which will tend to promote the existence of the selves. That requires that certain virtues and values are chosen and agreed to to protect the selves' existences. There are many different virtues and values that are chosen depending upon just the individual self or whether a group of individuals. There is only the agreement which determines the sets chosen, reality just is and changes and can be perceived by consciousnesses. There is no consciousness of reality itself which will choose to punish someone without a good set of virtues and values that are sufficient for survival and agreement between selves. There are many such virtues and values which will, depending on the context that will work. The set of virtues and values may be sufficient for survival but do not necessarily promise a likeable life. They just have to not contradict what is happening in reality, or Mother Nature for those who need a god. Reality is neutral except for consciousnesses which must discover the best ways to survive. Rand has presented a rather good set of virtues and values in her ethics but reality did not dictate them since it does not choose to act.
Why is universal law so important? Precisely because without it I don't have a way to measure my behavior against a meaningful standard any more than you do. If we both use the same independent standard, we can be objective not only in our discernment, but in our judgment, as we remove ignorance from the equation altogether. For the moral relativist, the why something is immoral is all important to it being immoral at all: the moral relativist does not recognize a universal measuring standard - they build it as they go. Moral universalism is immune to confirmation bias - moral relativism is plagued by it.
see for example: surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1...
-a defined fraction of the distance from N.pole to equator via Paris
- distance apart of marks on a metal bar kept in Paris
- the number of wavelengths of light from burning krypton
- the distance light travels in a defined number of seconds with time measured by an atomic clock.
The changes are to get the concept more precise and to enable local standards without the need for a trip to Paris.
I remain perplexed as to how this is enlightening discussion on how dangerous marijuana is if at all, and if dangerous what should be done about it if anything.
If universal moral law exists and is something to do with the current topic, then the work of Ayn Rand we call Objectivism is a good starting point as it wipes out much (all?) of previous moral relativism. Rand made an important distinction between moral (ethical) and what should be forced by some on others.
The standard that individuals are accorded natural rights not because of any choice they make but simply because they exist? That is a universal law declaration. A relativistic declaration would be that rights and morals are a result of certain actions on the part of the individual. Even the general declaration that it is immoral to use coercion is entirely based on a universal approach - that what is good for the proverbial goose is similarly good for the proverbial gander.
That is where the binary comes in: in a situation of universal application. It is either moral, or it isn't, but there are no in-betweens in a universal standard.
One just needs to observe the behavior of pot heads from our early days...they never went to far in life.
I get Imprismis and read the article recently.
[just joking...I agree that the studies should include that too.]
A "must read" for those tempted to try drugs.
They recently surfaced in the local supermarket where I do my grocery shopping. Extremely expensive.
That and superbeets are probably the only things keeping this 67 year old going.
Still hand splitting wood!...how about you guys?...[not bragging, just grateful.]
I have settled on, for now, (http://hemplucid.com), Hemplucid Tincture Water Soluble - 250mg. I mix it into my supperbeets in the morning. [$49.00 for a 30 day supply]
I get a discount through http://suspicious0bservers.org because I am a paying member.
You can also put it on cuts and burns. You can also vape it too.
Whole plant is best overall...however, seed oil is best for pain depending on brand.
This brand has only .03% THC which couldn't get a flee high.
I am very sensitive to thc and that little bit does not bother me at all.
In college, I could get high off everyone's exhale...I couldn't hang around with maryjane smokers.
I remember attending the concert of the "Electric Light Orchestra" in Madison Square Garden (long time ago) where they where passing around smoke to get everyone in the mood by the time the show started. We declined, being aware what the consequences may be.
They often use coconut oil, but that is not good for people with O type blood. Some use olive oil but that makes it much more expensive and there is always the question of the quality of olive oil because it is run by seedy characters.
https://hempbasics.com/
https://www.usahemp.com/
China is the world's largest producer of hemp fabric, whereas India produces the most hemp overall. Other products made from hemp fiber include: insulation, particleboard, fiberboard, rope, twine, yarn, newsprint, cardboard, paper, horse stable bedding, and compost.
Weed can be harmful in the same way as any FDA approved medication can be harmful. Taking the wrong chemicals for your body or the wrong dose of anything is harmful.
The danger comes from a lack of knowledge of what strains or products will work for you.
A good source of information is http://Leafly.com which uniquely will do the search for you based on what physical, Medical and mood effects you are looking for.
There is always an ulterior motive to these flawed studies. Dig deeper and you will find it.
Look for money and control and fear of losing either. Also the motive to publish or perish. What better way than to come out with a "New" study on something that people have become interested in. What would you rather read, the digestive enzyme response of the albino tapeworm or a sensational study about the horror I say Horror of Reefer madness?
Fake news.
"Taking the wrong chemicals for your body or the wrong dose of anything is harmful."
No one is arguing any differently. The author doesn't say there are no legitimate uses, just that those are far less frequent and less justified than proponents would have you believe. And there are far greater risks than those acknowledged by proponents.
For one who values the mind and its products, I think we should be very wary of anything with hallucinatory effects which distort our ability to accurately gauge reality.
The author and every study and article of this sort are flawed in that they conflate an overdose of THC from a specific strain or strains and blend of chemicals as applying to all marijuana. The studies do not figure in other factors in addiction and merely show a correlation. There is not one study that proves a causal relationship that marijuana causes addiction and the use of harder drugs.
Therefore it is fake news to say that Marijuana in general (without specifying the strain and blend of chemicals, circumstances and other factors of the person ) is dangerous, The danger is only for specific strains, in specific dosages and dependent on a person's DNA and endocannabinoid system. And there is zero proof that marijuana causes addiction.
Which is why he points to very specific research studies in his article. If you want to debunk them, please ferret out the studies and show where the research is flawed rather than simply broadly dismissing it simply because the author is not a marijuana researcher. (I would also point out that you also roundly criticize researchers, so I'm trying to figure out how that leaves anyone authoritative...)
"The author and every study and article of this sort are flawed in that they conflate an overdose of THC from a specific strain or strains and blend of chemicals as applying to all marijuana."
Uh, you must have missed the place in the article where the author specifically addresses the fact that modern TCH is actually more potent and addicting than it was in the past due to selective breeding of the plants and chemical concentration techniques. He addresses your question if you care to actually read the entire piece.
"The studies do not figure in other factors in addiction and merely show a correlation."
Uh, so on one hand you're going to criticize the author for failing to include a complete list of all the studies he examined, yet on the other you're going to complain that these uncited studies reach certain conclusions? Uhhhhhh.... If you don't see the problem in your argument...
"There is not one study that proves a causal relationship that marijuana causes addiction and the use of harder drugs."
Again, you must have failed to actually read the article, because the author cites studies which actually suggest just that. Feel free to research them for yourself, but you're taking a pretty hard line of denial before actually looking at anything. I'd strongly suggest you re-examine your premises.
First, he is correct in that there are no studies showing marijuana as a gateway drug. Indeed the research on the notion of gateway drugs is rather interesting in a certain way. It is vague, leaning away from supporting the hypothesis and do not demonstrate a link.
Briefly for now, the flaw in what people have called studies purporting to it don’t actually make that claim. They, as you note, “suggest” a link without any supporting data. Basically they fail to isolate the variables. The suggestions fall down the rabbit hole of “people used pot before X” but fail to make the distinction for drugs done before pot such as the two most commonly used drugs: alcohol and tobacco.
This is important because the underlying alleged cause is that the drugs “rewrite” or adapt the brain connections to be more susceptible to the reward mechanism. If this were true, this activity will take place first from alcohol and/or tobacco and the third drug, pot, will have no effect.
The few analyses (the proper term) that isolate those who start with pot, no tobacco or drink, shows no correlation with increased risk of additional drugs. When you also consider that this data is only among those classified as having a “abuse problem” it shows how murky even those results are as they exclude anyone who doesn’t rise to the that level.
This latter bit is one of the most damning and problematic of the entire effort. By nature of the data available they exclude people who use “casually” and show no signs of problematic usage such as abuse or dependency. In short, these analyses functionally exclude all the data that counters the hypothesis. Yet still they can’t show a causal effect or even a correlative on to support the claim when they’ve isolated the conditions and sequence.
Surprising results, to me, at least.
Just can't trust anything the MSM tells us.