tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142743152971096915.post4675942824815701118..comments2023-10-05T04:44:25.174-05:00Comments on Addiction Inbox: NIDA’s Dark View of Teen Marijuana UseDirk Hansonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07429793255785560043noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142743152971096915.post-85770016401309386192014-06-24T15:19:44.215-05:002014-06-24T15:19:44.215-05:00I have to agree that the association with NIDA rea...I have to agree that the association with NIDA really poisons this paper. I have put my own thoughts into much greater detail here: http://clinicalcannabisincontext.tumblr.com/post/89779954835/commentary-on-adverse-health-effects-of-marijuana-useAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05422146297080469244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142743152971096915.post-66945440239763988202014-06-16T09:33:29.935-05:002014-06-16T09:33:29.935-05:00Thanks for your comments. I'm not suggesting w...Thanks for your comments. I'm not suggesting we base all marijuana public policy on the fact that some people get addicted to it. I am suggested that we admit that some people get addicted to it. There is still HUGE resistance to this scientifically supportable notion, and some people do get into serious trouble with marijuana dependence. States that don't want to confront that are not looking out for their citizens. <br /><br />No one, including me, should ever use the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" in discussing current research, so I stand corrected on that. <br /><br />I am in favor marijuana decriminalization.Dirk Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07429793255785560043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142743152971096915.post-22354227390774324202014-06-15T23:40:07.366-05:002014-06-15T23:40:07.366-05:00Thanks for writing about this. I've just stumb...Thanks for writing about this. I've just stumbled on your blog and subscribed right away; it's extremely interesting and well-written. It does seem like NIDA has weakened their stance a bit, but I feel like the tone of the NIDA article is still pretty biased. Volkow et al. start right off the bat talking about the dangers of cannabis addiction, but I think they are missing the context here. Cannabis use can lead to addiction, but so can caffeine use. And so just talking about the addictive capacity of the drug doesn't tell us much, in my opinion, about the danger it poses to society; using it to inspire fear of cannabis use is more of the fear-mongering tactics NIDA has used in the past. You refer to a previous article you've written about cannabis dependency/withdrawal, but should we be basing our public policy decisions on a severe withdrawal syndrome that affects only 10% of cannabis users (and so a much smaller percent of the overall population)?<br /><br />Also, you mention that it has been "established beyond a reasonable doubt" that cannabis use during adolescence can impair cognitive development. But even the studies Volkow et al. cite don't establish this. They refer to some animal studies, then some human studies that have multiple interpretations (for example, one study saw altered connectivity but no change in behavior - Filbey & Yezhuvath, 2013), and a systematic review article (Batalla et al., 2013) that has gotten a lot of media attention (which has been criticized for too strong an interpretation) but also is just a review article. <br /><br />When it comes to inhaling the byproducts of combustible plant matter, it doesn't seem like there could be anything but negative effects on the respiratory system. But, this is also missing the point b/c there are other ways that cannabis can be administered without combustion (e.g. vaporizing). <br /><br />After reading your article, and not knowing much about your blog, I'm not really sure which side you come down on with this issue. But, despite the concessions NIDA has made with this article, I think it is still a result of cherry-picking the literature and not putting the effects of a psychoactive drug in context, in terms of realistic societal harm that we face with moderation vs. criminalization.neuroscihttp://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.comnoreply@blogger.com