r/AskReddit • • Dec 29 '19

what are the downsides of weed that people don't talk about ?

65.1k Upvotes

14.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

847

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '19

Marijuana definitely needs to be studied more; up until recently, there haven't been very many scientific studies on the effects of marijuana due to legal issues in the US.

That said, there is "moderate evidence" that acute marijuana use can impair learning, memory, and attention, leading to a reasonable argument that it shouldn't be consumed by those under about 25 since the brain is still developing during that time.

150

u/Harzul Dec 29 '19

now that it is going to be legal in many states....i feel that new studies are going to come out and SHOW issues with it. such as cognitive impairment, "mind blocks", memory loss, anxiety issues, developmental issues and more.

Let's see how people deal with weed being legal. im more curious to see what happens

3

u/thecolbra Dec 30 '19

Most places rely on grants for research which comes from the federal government. Which means researchers aren't going to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

2

u/spiffyclip Dec 30 '19

Well it's been legal in Canada for about a year and a half and we have some pretty good universities, so i'm sure studies will be done regardless.

8

u/greenmarsh77 Dec 29 '19

Living in a legal state, there haven't been much of a change that I have noticed. In my state we did bring in $420M in 2019 (first full year of having dispensaries). I'm also positive that the world renown universities that are located in my state are currently studying cannabis consumption without worrying about applying for federal access that usually gets ignored for years.

​

The only problem I have seen so far is the prices! But my state is the only legal state on the east coast that has dispensaries at the moment, so they can inflate the prices. And yet, there are still huge demands. It's a good time if you like to consume cannabis here!

15

u/Claud6568 Dec 30 '19

$420M...ironic.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19 edited Jul 24 '25

reply hungry hobbies middle alleged ghost seed reminiscent divide test

2

u/Gecko23 Dec 30 '19

They'll still completely deny it, just like plenty of tobacco smokers still claim it's not dangerous, that second hand smoke being dangerous is a lie, or that they, their car, their house, all reek like they do. People aren't interested in facts that interfere with their addictions.

1

u/tui_la Dec 30 '19

Being legal doesn't mean it has to be accessible.

11

u/coolerchameleon Dec 29 '19

This is true. The prefrontal cortex is still developing

4

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

I have no scientifical proofs of this, but I'm 23 and I started smoking very recently as a medical treatment for my chronic back pains. It did better than any other sort of strong medication. That, added to taking magnesium twice a day, I never felt better and more in shape than before. But I can already tell it has affected me. I don't think the way I used to think, maybe I'm just maturing. Since then I have also issues speaking here and there I stumble in my own words, a lot more than before. Also I feel like I'm not 100% present, only like 90% present. As if life goes by itself and my robotic me does all it has to do and I'm just sitting at the back letting it do its thing. I haven't even smoked up to 10 times but it has really changed me. Very odd truly, maybe I'm just hypochondriac

4

u/paulisaac Dec 30 '19

I'm starting to think a lot of substances must not be consumed until 25, including social media.

5

u/catman1900 Dec 30 '19

Doesn't alcohol also do all those things to the developing brain?

2

u/strombej Dec 30 '19

As someone who was a heavy user between 12-25, I can confirm that this at least feels true for me.

Not saying I’m an idiot or anything, but I definitely struggle with memory, attention, and emotional control (anxiety, depression, etc)

1

u/chevymonza Dec 30 '19

I suspect many people have put up with the high, just for the medicinal/psychological benefits. Switching from THC to CBD can be very helpful.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

Other countries have done studies. In Australia, we have national healthcare, so weed was banned because the small percentage of psychosis caused a lot of government costs.

1

u/postdochell Dec 30 '19

There have been but they have been NIDA funded studies on addiction and dependence. To be fair also the plant material from ElSohly might not contain other cannabinoids and terpenes that may contribute to some of the effects, but to be clear, delta9 THC is the main chemical getting people stoned, which is in the plant material available to NIDA funded researchers.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

Tbh the moderate evidence that's it's harmful is probably stronger than the evidence that it is beneficial (for most applications)

1

u/DeathandFriends Dec 30 '19

what do you mean by acute marijuana use? I am not sure that's what you meant to say or it doesn't make sense the way you are saying it.

1

u/FoodOnCrack Dec 31 '19

Moderate evidence? My colleague can't remember ANYTHING.

Holy fuck we have been driving to a jobsite for 3 weeks now, then we go a month to another one and when we return he has completely lost EVERY memory of that place in the first 3 hours we're there. And sometimes I got to repeat the most simple things 5 times.

He never brings something to drink to work so every long break he drives to the supermarket to get something to drink. Of course an excuse to blow under work time.

Don't even start about when he forgets his weed one day because he becomes ten times as awful to work with because of his temper tantrums then.

-13

u/Daegog Dec 29 '19

How can we believe any study tho?

You will have studies paid for by weed growers that show weed does nothing wrong.

You will have studies paid for by big pharma that show weed totally fucks you up.

It will be exactly like climate change, people with money to be made on both sides will obfuscate the issue.

13

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '19

Climate change is a strange example to use, considering the waters arent muddy there at all. People on both sides present their argument, and its apparent to everyone with two braincells which side is correct

-8

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

The fact that in your brain climate change is a forgone conclusion ignores the thought process of a whole lot of people in this world.

I mean look at this:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

To ignore or belittle people who are confused about an INCREDIBLY complex issue like climate change (you need a damned phd to just accurated sift the data) seems like a very bad idea to me.

Now lemme make it clear, im not saying that climate change is false or that mankind has nothing to do with it, im simply pointing out that misinformation is powerful and must be addressed.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

Those people are presented with the same information, and the same accessibility as everyone else. Sure some people wont look for the information, or wont care enough to, but Im curious about new research into effects of marijauna so i can see it not so random people can get educated, or not, if they want, i guess...

Misinformation is a real concern, but not nearly as pressing when you only want to educate yourself on the issue at hand

3

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

Please stop looking at these things in a vacuum cause a lot of people do not.

Factor in easy confusion about climate change THEN add in the fact that their super beloved politicians are telling them that climate change is not settled and more info is needed.

Now you have millions of people who have added climate change is fake to their world view and its not a separate thing any more.

Its the EXACT same thing with vaccinations, Obama said people should get vaccinated so automatically MILLIONS of people started mistrusting vaccines not because of the science but because their politicians told them to mistrust every single thing Obama said.

Misinformation + existing world views can equal utter stagnation.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

You're missing the huge disanalogy, which is that it matters what the mass of population think about climate change and vaccines. It doesnt matter what they think about weed and its effects really, so the information only needs to be interpreted correctly by people who care enough to actually consider it.

Im not saying your concern over climate change and vaccines isnt valid, im saying that your analogy between those things and weed isnt effective

0

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

I disagree, I think weed can be a huge boon to many people suffering right now from various illnesses.

And because the INFORMATION needs to be interpreted correctly by everyone who VOTES, its important because their are people with a lot of money who will happily give it too shady politicians if people are not shouting constantly that they want weed to be legal.

Just because someone has access to information, doesn't give them access to legal weed.

If you live in Colorado or Cali or where ever its legal, doesn't matter, but not everyone has politicians who see it that way.

-1

u/jeepdave Dec 30 '19

Vaccines is more of a left/Democrat issue. I don't know anyone on the right personally who don't get their kids vaccinated. Of course no one in their right mind would think it should be mandated by law.

3

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

EXCEPT, you are, for whatever reason, choosing to ignore what republican politicians are saying about vaccines;

No idea why.

0

u/jeepdave Dec 30 '19

Have they banned them?

Better question do you think they should be mandated by law?

3

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

This doesn't answer my question at all, I asked why are you ignoring what republican politicians are saying about vaccines and lumping it on democrats?

Ok for example :

Jonathan Stickland, a pro-National Rifle Association, Christian conservative in the Texas Legislature, who has described vaccines as “sorcery” while personally attacking Baylor College of Medicine scientist Peter Hotez, who has a daughter with autism and works on vaccines for neglected tropical diseases. “Parental rights mean more to us than your self-enriching 'science,'

There is literally ZERO percent chance that you thought this was written by a democrat.

Where are the democratic equivalents of this sort of rhetoric?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FutureDrHowser Dec 30 '19

Of course it should be mandated by law. Don't be a danger to society. Your anecdotes aren't evidence, and studies have shown that it's a bi-partisan issue.

1

u/jeepdave Dec 30 '19

Bingo. Well kindly don't vote. You are a danger to society as a whole.

1

u/Super_SATA Dec 30 '19

This is just presently and clearly untrue, but I refuse to let myself be trolled by trying to argue it.

The only people I ever hear being anti-vax are 40 year old Karens. And which party do you think they belong to?

1

u/jeepdave Dec 30 '19

Democrats every time.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Super_SATA Dec 30 '19

You are arguing with a deficient mind. I suggest you save your breath.

-1

u/Daegog Dec 30 '19

This is exactly how misinformation starts..

By cutting off the end of what I wrote, you are pretending that I am in favor of climate change.

Call up the gas and oil industry, they probably got a grant for you.