The point I am trying to make is that it's not harmless. There's positives and negatives. I just know a lot people(and have seen people argue online) who can't stop talking about the positives and act like there's literally no risk. It has risks.

They're not extreme or anything that means it should be banned but there is risk. To argue otherwise would be disingenuous. I think people are either being deliberately disingenuous, or maybe they literally don't know that there is potential risk with marijuana use.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything has the potential to be harmful. But I wouldn't be warning people against video games unless I knew something about them is susceptible to becoming addicted. The same thing can be said of marijuana. It being harmful is the exception, not the rule. Cigarettes and alcohol are more dangerous than marijuana.

[–] liontigerwings 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a competition of what is more or less harmful. I agree that they're both worse than marijuana. I don't see reasonable argument for pretending there are no risk though. As you know, we throughly awknowledge the risk of tobacco and alcholol. I think going back to caffiene is fair though. Most people they know there are risk to caffiene and they know that having too much of it can cause issues. Warning or awknowledment of risk isn't to sway convince people not to do something, it's to give them informormation to make an informed decision.

here's the two options to present:

weed is a healthy plant. it helps people manage cancer and fixed my grandmas glaucoma. Alcohol is worse. There's no hangover or drawback to weed. (this is legitimatly how weed is often portrayed).

weed is drug with reletively uncommon and relatively minor side-effects. Most people experiece eurhoria or relaxation with consumption. Marijuana may be helpful for alleviating cancer or chemotherapy symptoms or and may help with other specific conditions. A small percentage of users exerperience anxiety, panic attacks, or pycological dependence with usage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're still missing the point. Marijuana doesn't have that side effect. The person does. You're attributing the problem to the wrong thing. They're addicted not because of the drug but because of other issues in their life. It is not a physiological addiction. Other drugs actually change your body chemistry. Alcohol addiction will change your body chemistry. Marijuana "addiction" is behavioral. Like gambling or video games. The video games don't have the side effect. It's the person that has the inherent problem. If they'd become addicted to marijuana, they'd simply be addicted to something else instead of they give it up without getting some sort of therapy.

[–] liontigerwings 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're missing the point. Addiction isn't the only issue.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28115737/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30758486/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35184002/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Literally none of those document cannabis causing anything. Correlation does not imply causation. Depressed people do drugs more often. Doesn't mean drugs make people depressed.

Plus, none of that is the point of this article. Sure if you want to argue something else that's superficially related? But I don't even know what your arguing anymore. Are you arguing for government regulation because it has documented effects that still aren't worse than other legal products? What? Are you arguing something might be bad if not done in moderation? Shocking.

What this whole post is about is if marijuana is addictive. You're. Missing. The. Point.

Edit: two of them were clearly meta studies, maybe all three. That literally doesn't take into account the person at all which we're arguing is more the cause of issues than the drug itself.