Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!

[FourScore]

While approximately 10,000 per year die from the effects of illegal drugs, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that an estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs which, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and properly administered. More than two million suffer serious side effects. <3>

An article in Newsweek <4> put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. According to this article, only heart disease, cancer, and stroke kill more Americans than drugs prescribed by medical doctors. Reactions to prescription drugs kill more than twice as many Americans as HIV/AIDS or suicide. Fewer die from accidents or diabetes than adverse drug reactions. It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed.

According to another AMA publication, drug related "problems" kill as many as 198,815 people, put 8.8 million in hospitals, and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions. <5> If these figures are accurate, only cancer and heart disease kill more patients than drugs. Has the situation improved since the publication of this information? Hardly. Null <6> et al have published the most comprehensive and well-documented study I have seen of deaths associated with medical practice. In this report, their research revealed some shocking facts. The findings are summarized in the abstract:

"A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/1/15/recreational-drugs-far-less-likely-to-kill-you-than-prescribed-drugs.aspx

[G_j]

1. correct

but why should facts get in the way of drug company $$$ ?

[hobbit709]

2. Facts don't get in the way of DEA BS either

Just think of all the narcs who would be on the unemployment line.

[FourScore]

4. Facts are a nuisance. Ask the MSM, they don't need 'em! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

7. Should they legalize drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal one,

the growing for profit prison industry would be in a hurt as well.

[Recursion]

23. I shudder to think what RJR or Phillip Morris would do to pot

Though I suppose there would be organic options, though there barely is for tobacco.

[reggie the dog]

35. Don't worry about the pot

Once it is legal people like me will grow a shitload of it outside and give it away for free. There are already anarchist circles doing this all over France. They grow pot outdoors and give it away free of charge. Once it is legal here in France I am going to plant a few acres on my family land and just pass it out to everyone I know that smokes.

[killbotfactory]

47. You'll be doing the lords work

:thumbsup:

[Bonobo]

55. !!!

[Ishoutandscream2]

59. Alright! I'm researching airfare prices to France

I don't have to go to Disney World with my family! LOL!!

[reggie the dog]

64. the whole key is finding the pot anarchists.

one of my buddies in town got 60 grams of great outdoor for free but I have never been so lucky.

[Mythsaje]

3. On top of that

one must also realize that the primary reason for many of the deaths caused by recreational drugs are due to the completely lack of any kind of quality control--it's nearly impossible to know what impurities are present, and whether THIS batch of whatever is more or less pure than the last batch. This in particular probably contributes to the largest percentage of heroin overdoses.

[dmallind]

5. Interesting, but to be honest

they probably do a lot less to control your asthma, lower your cholesterol and prevent your erectile dysfunction too.

I mean it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

[Recursion]

6. Except they're just inventing conditions now

Restless leg syndrome? Restless leg syndrome, for Christ's sake?

And then pharma pushes every year to have the "acceptable" cholesterol level lowered... oh, look, you're cholesterol is dangerously high now (never mind that it's the same thing as last year) -- looks like you're eligible for some profitable and possibly non-dangerous statins!

[dmallind]

9. Oh no argument there (although I DO "suffer from" RLS)

I would never think of treating it with drugs but I do get the uncontrollable leg jerks when tired from time to time. A weird quirk though, not a shattering malady.

As far as cholesterol etc goes I find it, much like many health "concerns" to be a vastly overblown "risk". I never ever ever worry about increasing my risk of X by Y% until I find out what the actual risk IS. Buying three Powerball tickets increases my risk of being a winner 300% but I am not retiring just yet.

[AikidoSoul]

66. Roaches get "RLS" too... you know.. their legs twitch when they're being poisoned.

If you eliminated neurotoxic brain and central nervous system poisons from your sleeping environment your symptoms would most likely go away. Magnesium is especially important to help with cramping, twitching, etc.

All of us here in the U.S. should increase our intake of magnesium which we need more of now than ever due to such toxic crap
that is put into everything these days. Synthetic fragrances, pesticides, aerosols, carpeting and lots of other stuff
can affect the neurological system.

Even clothes and sheets are often impregnated with pyrethroid pesticides which can't be washed out even after thirty washings. All of this of course is done without our express permission or even labeling them as such. I mean... would you like to know that pesticides are off-gassing from your sheets and jammies the whole time you're in bed?

The pyrethroid pesticides are especially difficult to get out of cloth because they bind with the molecular matrix of fabric.
Carl Schrek of the University of FL did research funded by the military demonstrating how pyrethroids bind at the molecular level with cloth. Schrek and others showed that pyrethroids cannot be removed from textiles unless washed in excess of 30 times! (1)(2),(3), (4) (5).

Here's an excellent reference that shows how pyrethroid pesticides are impregnated into most textiles before marketing, and in many
other products as well.

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pyra/env_pro/trnfr_pro/sorp/resin.html

But of course, this is only the very tip of the toxic picture. It's next to impossible to create an indoor environment these days that is free of chemicals that affect the brain and central nervous system.

What pisses me off a lot is that the same companies who poison us with their neurotoxic chemicals which they make sure are in everything you touch and in the air you breathe -- are the same companies who make pharmaceuticals! So when you get your headaches, joint pain, memory loss, mood-swings, bladder urgency, leg twitches -- or whatever -- then they profit by selling you drugs to treat your symptoms.

What a business plan!

(1) "Pyrethroid insecticides and formulations as
factors in residues remaining in apparel fabrics
after laundering" Laughlin J. et al Bull Environ
Contam Toxicol 1991 Sept 355-61

(2) Schreck, C.E., Kane, F., and Carlson, D.A., 1982,
Permethrin impregnations of military fabrics: an
evaluation of application rates and industrial
methods by bioassay and gas chromatographic
analysis: Soap, Cosmetics, and Chemical Specialists,
v. 58, no. 8, p. 36-39. English. Sorption to Resins.
CA97(22):183855c.

(3) Schreck, C.E., Posey, K., and Smith, D., 1978,
Durability of permethrin as a potential clothing
treatment to protect against blood-feeding
arthropods: Journal of Economic Entomology,
v. 71, no. 3, p. 397-400. English. Sorption to
Resins. CA89(11):85711t.

(4) Bry, R.E., Lang, J.H., Boatright, R.E.,
and Simonaitis, R.A., 1977, Durability of
resmethrin on woolen cloth: Journal of the
Georgia Entomological Society, v. 12,
no. 2, p. 173-179. English. Sorption to
Resins. CA88(22):154238n.

(5) Schreck, C.E., Posey, K., and Smith, D.,
1978, Durability of permethrin as a potential
clothing treatment to protect against
blood-feeding arthropods: Journal of Economic
Entomology, v. 71, no. 3, p. 397-400. English.
Sorption to Resins. CA89(11):85711t


edited to change subject line and add references

[mopinko]

10. sleep depravation

a serious, serious condition. in some people it is caused by restless leg syndrome. no, it is not made up. it just didn't used to be diagnosed because people didn't used to get sleep studies. only those married to light sleepers were ever aware of it.

and this is very much apples and oranges. there isn't even a simple statistical tool of per capita usage. come on people. use your heads.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Restless Leg Syndrome is a real condition.

See, things like this is why people have to go through four years of medical school before they let you practice medicine.

They can't just let people who think syphillis is caused by demons or some such nonsense walking around pretending to be a doctor.

[jpgray]

28. And the causes and effects of it require medication?

[BlackVelvet04]

33. Mine was cured with

potassium and magnesium supplements.

[jpgray]

45. Was it so debilitating you'd pay considerable $ for a drug with bizarre side effects?

I think Mirapex has "intense gambling and sexual urges" listed as side effects. Might make for a nice night in Vegas, but would be rather awkward otherwise.

[BlackVelvet04]

46. It was pretty uncomfortable but no I wouldn't have taken a

prescription for it. I always look for vitamin/mineral supplements first. I don't like doctors very much.

[JackRiddler]

32. Okay, let's say I'm prepared to grant that...

What is the unique etiology of this condition that qualifies it as its own condition, and not a symptom of something else?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. There's no specific etiology.

Some suffer from idiopathic Wittmack-Ekbom's. In others it's related to an iron deficiency. Iron supplements work for some (although iron supplementation has problems of its own.) As far as I know, there aren't curatives, but many drugs are used to treat symptoms, particularly dopamine agonists.

[JackRiddler]

60. Okay, so it's real insofar as any symptom is real.

And it's treatable as a symptom. What's the point or basis for defining it as a syndrome, however? Doesn't that imply a specific condition with one cause?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. No.

First off, it has a fairly specific condition- the urge to move the legs or sometimes arms due to painful, burning, or otherwise obnoxious sensations, of a degree more extreme than a simple "nervous tic."

"Arthritis" simply means inflammation of the joints, it is quite real even though it can have different causes. Same for diabetes, or heart disease, and so on.

The word "syndrome" just means a series of related symptoms.

[JackRiddler]

79. Okay, thanks.

It's hard not to be cynical about syndromes, given how it's no longer usually the case that they are discovered and defined, after which a cure is sought, but rather rolled out with fanfare quasi as new product launches with the accompanying drug treatment already identified.

Also, I've been in a perpetual rage for more than a decade at the thought of millions of children being forced on to psychotropics because they are unruly in class ("adhd," a condition that curiously barely exists in France, by comparison). Similar situation obtains with diagnoses of depression, such that 1/4 of the population is now on prescription psychotropics.

All of which is not to say that there are cases where that's different, e.g. defining an RLS and treatments for it may actually be a very welcome development for millions of people who suffer from these symptoms.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Huh?

Restless Leg Syndrome's been studied since the 19th century, and more formally defined in the forties.

[JackRiddler]

81. When did it get that name?

Remember, where I prove ignorant, I do show a willingness to learn!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Well, according to wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_leg_syndrome#History

It appears to come from the title of the paper written by the doctor who was studying it.

[MnFats]

20. i pointed out a month ago that i'd never heard or RLS until the ad onslaught..

...and was immediately crucified by several sufferers who drilled me for my insensitivity.....
...still.... i have my doubts...


meanwhile i want to sign up for tests to prove any thesis drawn from this study.....OK, let's see if oxycontin works better than heroin on a headache!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

12. THC = vasodilator for asthma, has shown some promise in this area for hypertension as well.

Hemp oil, HDL boosting properties, for cholesterol management, plus omega 3 benefits.

ED, though, not sure it it helps with that.

MKJ

[chicagomd]

93. Huh?

You need a bronchodialator for asthma, not a vasodialator. Dr. Google, I presume?

[smoogatz]

19. I wonder how recreationals compare to "lifestyle" pharma drugs.

Stuff like Viagra and Lunesta, etc., that treat non-life-threatening conditions. Or even over-the-counter drugs. I'll bet the numbers would still be pretty interesting.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

42. Actually, marijuana has been proven to help asthma, and it helps many

'get it up'.

Just sayin'.

[chicagomd]

95. Huh?

Please show us the proof, Dr. Google. Hell, I would settle from an article from "High Times" at this point. Otherwise I call bullsh*t.

[Romulox]

70. Actually, marijuana is an effective treatment for asthma, among other things...nt

[chicagomd]

94. Again, huh?

Marijuana is an effective treatment for asthma? So it has bronchodialator properties? It can reverse acute bronchospasm? Or is it preventative? Does it reduce the risk of attack?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

THC does have some very real medicinal properties, but I think you are pushing it a bit without providing some type of link to back-up your claim.

[AikidoSoul]

74. You've lost the point entirely. The effort has always been

to make illegal drugs look really dangerous and bad and to make legal drugs look really safe and wonderful.

And it's my understanding that many people who do illegal drugs do so for medicinal reasons as well.

Think of this too. Many psych drugs trigger serious psychological problems. The drug companies like to
suppress this information as they do with many reports of dangerous side effects.

[BlackVelvet04]

8. As Bill Maher said...

"don't smoke pot, let the professionals fuck you up."

[Jim__]

11. The article doesn't really seem to be talking about likelihood.

It's talking about total number of deaths. To talk about likelihood, you have to factor in death rates. And then, even when you are factoring in death rates, you really should factor out, say, pot smokers.

My guess is that the death rate from recreational use of truly dangerous drugs (heroin, cocaine, non-prescribed pharmaceuticals) is much higher than death from prescription drug use.

I agree with the thrust of the article that far too many people die unnecessarily from mistakes in the medical industry. However, I don't think we should give people the idea that recreational use of dangerous drugs is less dangerous that taking prescibed medication.

[reggie the dog]

37. purity control

the only reason for a high death rate with hard drugs is the lack of knowledge of the purity of the stuff people are taking. Legalize it and put a purity lable on it and deaths would drop.

[Jim__]

51. That's not true.

Purity is a problem, but it's not the only problem.

I've known people who died from taking (non-prescribed) pharmaceuticals who knew how powerful they were; and people who've died from smoking crack who had a very good idea how powerful it was. One of the problems with taking drugs to get stoned is that you almost always want to get more stoned. And, when you're stoned and taking drugs, you don't really worry too much about health issues.

I favor decriminalizing drugs, and possibly legalizing them; but I believe that legalization should take an iterated approach to measure the effects rather than making everything legal over-night.

[reggie the dog]

62. bingo

"I've known people who died from taking (non-prescribed) pharmaceuticals who knew how powerful they were; and people who've died from smoking crack who had a very good idea how powerful it was. One of the problems with taking drugs to get stoned is that you almost always want to get more stoned. And, when you're stoned and taking drugs, you don't really worry too much about health issues." quite right, purity is only part of it.

[Romulox]

71. Why should pot be "factored out"? It's a Schedule I drug, just like heroin...nt

[Jim__]

75. It should be factored out for the same reason it shouldn't be a Schedule I drug.

Schedule I drug means it's addictive. Please. It's misclassified. It's a widely used, basically safe, drug. By including it in a number that's reflecting death from drug use, it's artificially making dangerous drug use seem safer than it is. We really don't want to underestimate the risk from using dangerous drugs recreationally. Marijuana is not a dangerous drug; it shouldn't be used when talking about the risk of death from drug use.

[Romulox]

77. The mis-scheduling of marijuana makes the conversation you suggest effectively impossible.

Point of fact, this is precisely the point. The overwhelming majority of "drug offenders" in this country use marijuana, not crystal meth or heroin.

As long as legal and "public health" authorities draw no distinction between a joint and a syringe of heroin, then any discussion of "dangerous illegal drugs" must necessarily center on pot.

[Jim__]

90. Not when you're comparing death from prescribed drug to death from recreational drug use.

If it's not made explicitly and abundantly clear that the death rate for recreational drug use includes marijuana use, the stated death rate for recreational drugs is misleadingly low. The overwehelming majority of people know that pot does not pose any realistic threat to life.

[lildreamer316]

88. Same thing happened with MDMA.

It is not phiscally addictive. In fact, it is being studied to help soldiers with PTSD.
In the report "Extascy Rising" by Peter Jennings,he reports that in one year of study in NYC, only ONE death was attributed to MDMA.
ONE.

[trotsky]

91. How dare you bring common sense into this discussion! n/t

[dkofos]

13. Can you imagine what could have been done with all the money we

have pissed away on the war on drugs.

[Recursion]

14. Invaded the rest of the middle east n/t

[Warpy]

15. How to Lie with Statistics

should be required reading for everybody at DU because it would show you immediately what is wrong with this stupid attempt to prove medicine is deadly and self dosing with powerful drugs is safe as milk.

The truth is that there are more people who are taking prescribed medications than there are taking drugs illegally. Were the statistics above honest, they'd give percentages of adverse events rather than raw totals.

The truth is that all drugs are not created equal: people with hidden heart conditions can and do die from their first toke of crack cocaine. Others damage their hearts so badly they are never the same. The same goes for meth, arguably one of the worst drugs on the planet.

I'm all for ending the drug war and putting recreational drugs under the supervision of the FDA for purity, safety, and consistency of dosage, then sold over the counter to any adult. The drug war is pure insanity and needs to be stopped. We lost. Too bad.

However, trying to paint medicine as somehow more dangerous than recreational drug use with substances of unknown quality that could be cut with anything from baking soda to cement dust is beyond disingenuous.

It's a lie.

[Recursion]

21. How to lie by claiming statistics are lying...

The truth is that there are more people who are taking prescribed medications than there are taking drugs illegally.

About 15% of Americans reported having used marijuana in the previous month in a 2006 survey. They are disproportionately young; in 2005, 45% of 12th-graders reported having used marijuana. In 2005, about half of Americans reported taking a prescription drug.

So, if we take the illegal-drug-using portion of the population at 15% (let's assume that number comprises all other illegal drug users, for convenience -- the percent at least is not lower than 15%), and 50% as the rate of those who legally use prescription drugs, we have 10,000 deaths per year coming out of 15% of the population and 106,000 deaths per year coming out of 50% of the population.

That's still a much higher risk for prescription drugs than illegal drugs. Let's take a US population of 300,000,000 for convenience (it's close to that, at any rate). The 106,000 killed by properly-prescribed drugs come from the 150,000,000 who take prescription drugs, for a fatality incidence of 35.3 per hundred thousand. The 10,000 killed by illegal drugs came from the 45,000,000 who take illegal drugs (and remember that's a lowball figure that assumes the pot-smokers are everybody), for a fatality incidence of 22.2 per hundred thousand.

The truth is that all drugs are not created equal: people with hidden heart conditions can and do die from their first toke of crack cocaine. Others damage their hearts so badly they are never the same. The same goes for meth, arguably one of the worst drugs on the planet.

The same is true of prescription medicines.

However, trying to paint medicine as somehow more dangerous than recreational drug use with substances of unknown quality that could be cut with anything from baking soda to cement dust is beyond disingenuous.

Then why is the fatality rate of prescription drugs 35.3 per hundred thousand, while the fatality rate for illegal drugs is at most 22.2 per hundred thousand? The data don't support your conclusion.

[AikidoSoul]

73. It's much more than 106,000 deaths. You selected only people who die from drugs in hospitals

and excluded other groups. Read further to see much higher figures from looking at what total death figures might look like with other groups included.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. Why?

"I'm all for ending the drug war and putting recreational drugs under the supervision of the FDA for purity, safety, and consistency of dosage, then sold over the counter to any adult."


They can't get the purity, safety and consistency of dosage of prescription drugs right.

[progressoid]

16. That's why I'm a Christian Scientist.

jeebus will save me.

[smoogatz]

17. No one has ever died from marijuana overdose.

Not one. It's safer than aspirin, for Christ's sake.

[bidenista]

22. marijuana safe? sorry, it's not

Sorry, but the fact that no-one has died from an overdose does not mean that marijuana is safer than aspirin. How many people have had serious psychosis triggered by aspirin use?

Guardian article based on Lancet study:

Polly Curtis, health correspondent
Friday July 27, 2007
The Guardian

Smoking cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia by at least 40% according to research which indicates that there are at least 800 people suffering serious psychosis in the UK after smoking the drug.

Mental health groups called on the government last night to issue fresh health warnings and launch an education campaign to advise teenagers that even light consumption of the drug could trigger long-term mental health problems. The findings came after a rush of ministers declared their cannabis-smoking pasts and an order from the prime minister for officials to consider whether the drug should be reclassified amid fears about its more potent "skunk" form. Last night the Home Office said the research would be considered in that review.

The study, an analysis published in the Lancet medical journal of previous research into the effects of the drug on tens of thousands of people, provides the most persuasive evidence to date that smoking cannabis can cause mental illness years after people have stopped using it.

The overall additional risk to cannabis smokers is small, but measurable. One in 100 of the general population have a chance of developing severe schizophrenia; that rises to 1.4 in 100 for people who have smoked cannabis.

But the risk of developing other psychotic symptoms among people who smoke large quantities or are already prone to mental illness is significant, the researchers say.

People who smoke cannabis daily have a 200% increased risk of psychosis. They estimate that 14% of 15- to 34-year-olds currently suffering schizophrenia are ill because they smoked cannabis, a figure previously thought to be between 8% and 10%. According to the current diagnosis rates about 800 people would have been spared schizophrenia if they had not smoked cannabis....

[Fly by night]

24. Welcome to DU. Correlation does not equal causation. And furthermore...

... by the logic of the Lancet article, pablum could be indicted as a cause of schizophrenia "even years after the patients stopped using it".

Here are three statements that address marijuana's safety:

"Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”

“Marijuana … is capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision.”

“Marijuana has … currently accepted medical use in treatment … and there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision.”

Which drug-addled hippie said these things? Well, it was Judge Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (1988)

Judge Young reached this conclusion after hearing testimony over two years on marijuana's safety and medical efficacy. Like every other government-created advisory group since Nixon, Judge Young recommended that marijuana be reclassified from Schedule I (where it is considered equivalent to heroin and more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine) to a lower schedule so it could once again be used for medical purposes. As always, the DEA (watching out for its own paycheck) ignored those recommendations.

If you don't like Judge Young's opinion, try this one from the American Medical Association, which objected to marijuana being made illegal in the 1930s: ”Marijuana has clear potential for many beneficial medical uses -- there is no evidence that it is dangerous.” (Dr. W. Woodward, AMA, 1937)

[bidenista]

25. check out the original article

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree that marijuana should be reclassified, but I can't accept that it is "safer than aspirin". The Lancet study (full text here) explains its methodology in detail (should address your concerns about causation/correlation), and has information from 35 studies, many of which took place after 1988. This is one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, so I doubt they're going to make basic sampling/interpretative errors. Their findings?

There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20–1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54–2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.

[Fly by night]

26. Three points, as I wait for the Lancet article to download

I doubt if the article "solved" the correlation/causation issue, even if it was published in Lancet. The absense of schizophrenia (or pre-disposing factors) would have to be documented in study subjects prior to their use of cannabis. Since schizophrenia is seldom diagnosed in adolescents, the overlap between cannabis use and psychiatric diagnosis -- and documented evidence that symptoms of emerging psychosis did not predate cannabis use -- would be difficult to collect (although, again, I will read the article when it downloads here -- dial-up challenged as I am.)

Two other points. Cannabis is indeed less dangerous than aspirin, if risk of drug-related death is the criterion. For that matter, almost all psychoactive substances are demonstrably more hazardous than cannabis. This chart of annual deaths attributed to substance use illustrates this point:

Tobacco: 340,000 - 450,000
Alcohol: 150,000+ (Plus 50% traffic deaths and 65% murders)
Prescription Drugs: 14,000 - 27,000
Illicit Drugs: 3,800 - 5,200
Caffeine: 1,000 - 10,000
Aspirin: 180 - 1,000+
Marijuana: 0*

* There has never been a single overdose death from marijuana in all of recorded history (5,000+ years).

In addition, the oral LD50 comparisons of cannabis with other substances makes the same point. (You probably know this, but the oral LD50 is the amount of a substance that, if taken orally, is expected to kill 50% of the recipients, based on animal studies.)

ALCOHOL: 1 QUART PGA
METHAMPHETAMINE: 5 GRAMS
HEROIN: 4 GRAMS
COCAINE: 2 GRAMS
NICOTINE: 1/20TH GRAM
MARIJUANA: NO KNOWN LD50


I have spent almost forty years as a substance abuse epidemiologist, and there is no better example of a policy that is less based on science than our government's policy regarding marijuana.

[Recursion]

27. Now, that's disingenous..

Tobacco: 340,000 - 450,000
Marijuana: 0*
* There has never been a single overdose death from marijuana in all of recorded history (5,000+ years).

There has never been a tobacco overdose death either. In both cases the primary health risks comes not from the drug, but from its delivery method. And smoking marijuana is as bad for your lungs as smoking tobacco (worse, since in practice you tend to hit a toke harder than a cig).

[bidenista]

30. good point

[JackRiddler]

31. possibly!

But the numbers of lung cancer or emphysema cases in humans attributable to marijuana - which may or may not resolve into a higher rate of incidence than with tobacco - are not available, since the studies can't be done, because of criminalization: an insane policy that has put million people in prison for smoking an herb.

[Recursion]

34. I'm certainly with you there

The extent to which scientific research with marijuana has been made impossible is appalling. It's actually easier to do research with cocaine.

[killbotfactory]

38. Marijuana doesn't cause cancer

In fact, it seems to have anti-cancer properties.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

It's bad for your lungs, but not as bad as tobacco, and not nearly as bad if you use a vaporizer.

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

Marijuana was originally banned, not because it caused problems, but because of politics. Immigrants in the southwest smoked it and we wanted to crack down on them, and the cotton and timber industries wanted to take out industrial hemp. We've spent the past century trying to justify that policy in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no valid justification for throwing people in jail simply for growing and smoking this plant. None.

[BlackVelvet04]

39. Wrong.....

tests show marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer.

[Recursion]

41. Any smoke is carcinogenic if inhaled

Period. It's just what burned hydrocarbons do.

[BlackVelvet04]

48. beg to differ...

Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Dr. Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/tashkinlungcancer.html

[Romulox]

72. Someone isn't familiar with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. LOL nt

[reggie the dog]

43. cannabis is not as bad for your lungs as tobacco

simply because a typical tobacco smoker smokes more grams of tobacco per day than a cannabis smoker smokes in cannabis a day. How many cannabis smokers that you know smoke 10 or 20 cigarette sized joints a day by themselves? Also the THC in cannabis has been shown to reduce/inhibit the development of cancer cells whereas nicotine has been shown to increase/favor the development of cancer cells.

[Fly by night]

52. The oral LD50 of nicotine is 1/20th of a gram. There is no oral LD50 for THC or other cannabinoids.

People have died from nicotine overdoses -- they have not died from THC overdoses.

[Bonobo]

56. Maybe if the govt. didn't bust company's that sell vaporizers it wouldn't be true.

Vaporizers combust marijuana without creating smoke and producing carcinogens, but the govt. busts them as "paraphanalia" so THEY are contributing to the deaths of millions.

[Ediacara]

65. I disagree here

Even "light" smokers smoke more tobacco than heavy users of marijuana. Four or five cigarettes a day isn't much, but four or five joints a day every day is almost unheard of. Hitting a toke harder is really lost in the fact that people easily smoke 10x as much tobacco as they do marijuana...

[Recursion]

78. Heh

four or five joints a day every day is almost unheard of.

We clearly went to different high schools.

[bidenista]

29. fair enough re: overdosing

I don't deny that it's probably impossible to overdose on marijuana. But that doesn't mean it's harmless. This is from a good, balanced source:

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work, and productivity.

http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html#myth5

So there almost certainly have been marijuana related-deaths. As for comparing their numbers with aspirin deaths - and leaving aside that aspirin does not increase your chances of developing schizophrenia - you would need to adjust for the differences in usage. Which are considerable!

[Fly by night]

53. By definition, pot smokers are risk-takers. Risk-takers have accidents.

The ER studies have been criticized, as have studies of psychiatric patients, for the same correlation/causation issues mentioned above. Researchers could interview ER patients, ask them what they had for breakfast, and then conclude that Cheerios are a major cause of accidents.

Once again, people who want to maintain the current political schizophrenia regarding marijuana's illegality have to stretch far to find any justification for it. If we applied the same rules to all substances that we apply to marijuana, there would be no psychoactive medication available in this country (and our food supply would be restricted also.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. That's not the study, it's just a commentary.

...of a meta-analysis.

:rofl:

It also says quite clearly it hasn't shown causality.

[reggie the dog]

40. This is not causation

This article shows more that people who have mental illness such as schizophrenia smoke cannabis at a higher rate than the non mentally ill population. It has to do with wanting to feel "good" or "normal" instead of crazy or depressed.

[bidenista]

49. Read the full research piece - they worked to exclude such people

[reggie the dog]

61. i have read the article

were it causation and not corelation such mental health problems would have skyrocketed in the 60's.

[killbotfactory]

63. Exactly. Rates of schizophrenia have remained stable

Meanwhile cannabis use has increased and decreased over the years.

[Recursion]

84. Did the rate of cannabis use go up in the 1960's?

Or did it just become more public. Is there any evidence on either side? I don't think we actually started scientifically tracking illegal drug use rates until the late 1980's.

[reggie the dog]

86. of course it went up

martinis were big in the 50's, weed in the 60's

[smoogatz]

50. How many people have died from GI bleeding from smoking pot?

Just curious.

[Bonobo]

54. Serious psychoses? Here's a serious question. Did you ever smoke it?

If not, you really cannot be expected to be viewed as being a believable source on the subject.

[Recursion]

57. Huh?

I don't follow you there. You have to use a drug before you can reliably examine clinical evidence about it?

[reggie the dog]

68. I am certain that plenty of non smokers

can be believed. just not this particular person.

[Blaze Diem]

44. Absolutely .

k&r

[AtomicKitten]

69. One particular "recreational drug," i.e., marijuana, has all kinds of medicinal benefits.

Unfortunately for Americans medicinal marijuana also poses a threat to the prescription drug industry, and they aren't having any of that. :-(

[SoCalDem]

82. Sorry..couldn't resist

[Recursion]

85. Ban comic sans

Put the sans in comic sans

[uppityperson]

92. Now that is funny. Thanks. To the issue, my take:

comparing how many people take rec drugs to prescribed, more people die of prescribed. Comparing ratios (same amount taking/killed), probably not.

[LanternWaste]

87. Regardless, I'm still a bit more confident

Regardless, I'm still a bit more confident in getting a shot of ampicillin rather than shooting up some heroine... :evilgrin:

[Echo In Light]

89. Those non taxed drugs are the "bad" drugs lol. Establishment LIES about EVERYTHING

...and yet dupes roam the country insisting conspiracies don't exist. Fuckin' amazing...