Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we have been misled on marijuana

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of marijuana use, particularly in light of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's recent statements and documentary. Participants explore the medicinal properties of marijuana, the effects of legalization, and the potential harms associated with its use, especially among adolescents. The conversation includes references to various studies and differing perspectives on the classification and regulation of marijuana.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the current understanding of marijuana's medicinal properties and call for more research into its chemical components.
  • Several participants reference a study indicating neuropsychological decline among persistent cannabis users, particularly those who began using in adolescence, suggesting a potential neurotoxic effect.
  • Others argue that while there are harms associated with marijuana, the societal consequences of its criminalization may outweigh these harms.
  • Some participants advocate for legalization, suggesting that it should not only be for medical use but for recreational use as well, while acknowledging concerns about underage access.
  • There are differing views on the relevance of studies focused on adolescent use, with some arguing that these studies are crucial to understanding the broader implications of marijuana use.
  • Participants discuss the need for a more nuanced approach to drug policy, including potential taxation and regulation, as well as the importance of informed public discourse on the topic.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential cognitive effects of marijuana, with some participants suggesting that legalization should be approached cautiously to avoid widespread misuse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a range of views on marijuana legalization, with some advocating for it and others cautioning against full legalization. There is no consensus on the implications of the studies cited, particularly regarding adolescent use and the classification of marijuana.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and personal experiences, but there is a lack of consensus on the interpretation of these findings and their relevance to the broader discussion of marijuana policy and health effects.

  • #31
Monique said:
More prevalent than alcohol?
Illicit, alcohol is legal here if you are 21 or older, and it is legal to drive with a blood alcohol level below .08. It used to vary by state, but I recently read that most states have agreed upon the lower .08 level.
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That's what should be argued.
 
  • #33
Monique said:
I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That's what should be argued.
Obviously marijuana does not fall under those three criteria. Unfortunately, attempts to remove it from the Schedule 1 classification have failed.

*Warning: the following wikipedia excerpt is not peer reviewed. :-p

Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.
continued...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Evo said:
Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.

A reason why I say more money needs to go to research and regulations should be less strict. A friend of mine is a senior in a company that researches these plants, but they always run into legislation and are regularly operating in a grey area. They have been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, but somehow manage to get by.

And if it is legal you don't have to use it, just like you don't have to smoke cigarettes just because they're legal (which are far more harmful btw).
 
  • #35
Dr Gupta's show "weed" will be aired tonight on CNN at 7pm CST. Should be interesting.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #36
Turns out that "Dr. Gupta" is an assumed name. This photo of "Dr. Gupta" in a candid moment should shed a whole lot of light on the matter. :biggrin:

(So shoot me, I thought the thread could do with some levity). :-p
 

Attachments

  • k.jpg
    k.jpg
    9.5 KB · Views: 416
  • #38
No, I didn't watch it. Despite the importance of this debate, I think Dr. Gutpa is really just shifting towards popular opinion to stay relevant, honestly.
 
  • #39
This made me laugh.

http://news.yahoo.com/cops-dealing-doritos-post-legalization-hempfest-070354736.html
 
  • #40
In today's news. http://news.yahoo.com/feds-wont-sue-stop-marijuana-2-states-173520230--politics.html
the Justice Department said Thursday that states can let people use the drug, license people to grow it and even allow adults to stroll into stores and buy it — as long as the weed is kept away from kids, the black market and federal property.

The policy change embraces what Justice Department officials called a "trust but verify" approach between the federal government and states that enact recreational drug use.
 

Similar threads

News Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen as Warning on U.S. Drug Policy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K