The abstract of the review is interesting and honestly reflects my (negative) experience with cannabis.

I admit, I really like cannabis, and when I was a 20 year old occasionally smoking with friends at parties it was a "healthier" alternative to getting wasted on alcohol. Share few joins with friends, have fun, laugh a lot.

Then as I got financially independent and I started solo consumption (mostly to get rid of stress) I really started appreciating the cons: lack of energy, disruption of sleep, negative impact of my cognitive abilities, increase in anxiety. I'm glad the study confirms those to be statistically common.

I was very lucky to have a SO who really disliked me smoking and made me realize that I was just doing it to "not think", and it had really 0 positive effects on me. I'm sure I would've quitted eventually anyway, but support and criticism sped up the reality check.

Eventually this is all anecdotal experience, and I'm sure there might be occasional users who can have a mostly positive experience, but the fact that a review points out how statistically common are the negatives and how uncommon are the positives honestly reflects what I've seen on myself and friends.

▲

jrflowers 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>The abstract of the review is interesting and honestly reflects my (negative) experience with cannabis.

The abstract doesn’t say anything about recreational cannabis usage.

>lack of energy, disruption of sleep, negative impact of my cognitive abilities, increase in anxiety. I'm glad the study confirms those to be statistically common.

>I was very lucky to have a SO who really disliked me smoking and made me realize that I was just doing it to "not think"

This study about the clinical outcomes of physician-directed cannabis usage for specific conditions doesn’t really get into musing about how weed is just sort of generally bad. The only part of the study that seems to sort of touch on what you’re talking about is the section about Cannabis Use Disorder

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2842072?gu...

At no point in this study does it say that “share a few joints with friends, have fun, laugh a lot” has common negatives and uncommon positives. It is not in the purview of the analysis.

▲

vorpalhex 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The study directly discusses the negatives of >10mg thc doses including anxiety and insomnia.

	▲	jrflowers 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For some patients, sometimes. There is no part of this study that says that “positives are uncommon and negatives are common” to cannabis/cannabinoid use overall as the comment I was responding to said. You would have to only read “these are some negative effects some people have experienced” and not read anything else in the study to conclude “the authors of this study that repeatedly points out the efficacy of Nabiximols are trying to tell you that cannabinoids are Actually Bad And Not Good”

▲

smugtrain 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Confirmation bias

▲

vorpalhex 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Denial

	▲	johnea 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Denial of confirmation bias

▲

imiric 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm of the opinion that the claimed negative effects of cannabis are correlations, not causations. I've yet to read a study that empirically proves cannabis causes health issues beyond those caused by e.g. smoke inhalation.

I subscribe to the r/leaves subreddit, and the vast majority of posters clearly struggle with mental and physical health, and have abused the substance for years. If you consume anything daily in high dosages it's a sign that you're using the substance as a coping mechanism for other problems in your life, which you should probably address first. And then they wonder why they feel even worse after quitting cannabis... Well, yeah, you stopped relying on something that you thought helped you, without addressing the underlying problems.

The fact that there have been no recorded deaths directly caused by cannabis in all of human history[1] should be enough indication that this is the least harmful substance we enjoy. Especially when compared to alcohol, tobacco, and most other drugs. If it helps reduce stress, boost creativity, and makes life fun, there's nothing wrong with using it responsibly. The negative symptoms you mention are highly subjective, and will depend on the person's existing health and habits.

Kurzgesagt recently published a video strongly critical of cannabis[2], and it's full of anecdata and scare tactics, similar to what you often read from personal reports. As a fan of their content, this video has significantly reduced my confidence in their research and reporting.

[1]: I'm aware of recent reports of "THC overdoses", but those have all been caused by side-effects and poor judgment.

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brm71uCWr-I

▲

cassianoleal 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> The fact that there have been no recorded deaths directly caused by cannabis in all of human history[1] should be enough indication that this is the least harmful substance we enjoy.

Also 0 from LSD:

"LSD at typical recreational doses (~50–250 μg) is considered to be very safe in terms of toxicity, with not a single toxicity-related death having been reported at such doses despite many millions of exposures" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Overdose

2 from psylocybin which edges on statistical error, but also:

"In reality, the 2016 Global Drug survey found that psilocybin mushrooms are the safest recreational drug. Of 12,000 people who reported using magic mushrooms, just 0.2% sought emergency medical attention, at least five times less than the rate for cocaine, LSD, and MDMA." https://recovered.org/hallucinogens/psilocybin/can-you-overd...

So, even though cannabis does seem to be very safe, it's not necessarily _the least harmful_.

▲

imiric 10 hours ago | parent [-]

While that's true, I don't consider psychedelics to be within the same realm of safety as cannabis. Cannabis does have psychoactive effects, of course, but it doesn't induce visual and auditory hallucinations with the intensity that LSD, psilocybin, or even MDMA do. I do think that cannabis can make mental disorders such as anxiety worse in people who are already prone to them, but psychedelics are far more dangerous in that sense, especially with higher dosages. These effects can sometimes persist long after the effects of the substance wear off.

Also, synthetic compounds such as LSD and MDMA which have only been around for a ~century don't have the historical record of cannabis, psilocybin, and other substances found in nature, which humans have consumed for thousands of years. So to me those are intuitively less "safe".

▲

chneu 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Dosage matters. Lots of folks take psilocybin and lsd on a daily basis.

Also the weed we smoke today is absolutely nothing like historical cannabis. The potency is hundreds of times higher, depending on what they're breeding for.

	▲	imiric 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Dosage matters. Lots of folks take psilocybin and lsd on a daily basis. Microdosing is not the same as recreational usage. Not many people take LSD or psilocybin recreationally that often. Cannabis recreational usage is much more common, with far lower health risks. > Also the weed we smoke today is absolutely nothing like historical cannabis. It's much stronger, but I wouldn't say it's "absolutely nothing" like historical cannabis. The way we consume it (concentrates, edibles, etc.) also makes it much more potent. But even that pales in comparison with the effects of moderate doses of psychedelics, which can have lasting psychological effects. So, sure, dosage matters, but these substances have fundamentally different psychoactive effects.

▲

rusk 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anecdata