Verharmlosung von Cannabis: wieso?
Studie: Kiffen schadet dem Gehirn von Jugendlichen
2021
Geringe Konzentration und impulsives Verhalten: Gerade im Jugendalter kann der Konsum von Cannabis die Hirnstruktur und damit auch das Verhalten verändern – das zeigt eine neue Langzeitstudie.
https://www.swr.de/wissen/cannabis-konsum-kiffen-schadet-gehirn-von-jugendlichen-100.html
Dümmer durch Kiffen: Cannabis entspannt – doch langfristig schädigt es das Gehirn
2023
Je früher im Leben mit dem häufigen Kiffen begonnen wird, desto verheerender für die Denkleistung. Das bestätigen die verfügbaren Studien einstimmig. Wer schon im Jugendalter damit beginnt, hat besonders schlechte Prognosen.
Kurzfristige Risiken
Sie möchten sich entspannen, Stress reduzieren oder ein bestimmtes Problem verdrängen – und greifen zum Joint. Das kann auch das Gegenteil bewirken, denn Cannabis wirkt von Person zu Person unterschiedlich. Was andere glückselig macht, beeinflusst Sie selbst unter Umständen negativ. Akute Nebenwirkungen, die unter Cannabis auftreten können, vergehen in der Regel innerhalb einiger Stunden oder weniger Tagen von allein. Dazu zählen:
- Angst- und Panikgefühle
- Orientierungslosigkeit
- Verminderte Reaktionsfähigkeit
- Erinnerungslücken
- Übertriebene Empfindlichkeit
- Depressive Verstimmung
- Herzrasen, Übelkeit oder Schwindel
- Halluzinationen
Alles andere als harmlos: chronischer Konsum
Wenn Sie Cannabis regelmäßig über einen längeren Zeitraum konsumieren, gefährden Sie Ihre Gesundheit. Es kann zu folgenden gesundheitlichen Problemen kommen:
Psychische Folgen
Je regelmäßiger und intensiver Sie Cannabis konsumieren, desto eher können Sie eine Angststörung, eine Depression oder eine bipolare Störung entwickeln. Zudem erhöht Cannabis Ihr Risiko, an einer Psychose zu erkranken. Die Erkrankung kann außerdem früher ausgelöst werden – das gilt insbesondere, wenn Sie psychisch vorbelastet sind.
Organische Folgen
Cannabis kann Ihren Atemwegen schaden. Inhalieren Sie die Droge, kann dies ähnlich wie beim Tabakrauchen zu einer chronischen Bronchitis führen. Hinzu kommt, dass Joints oft mit Tabak angereichert und in der Regel tiefer und länger inhaliert werden als Zigaretten. Damit erhöhen Sie Ihr Risiko, eine chronisch-obstruktive Lungenerkrankung (COPD) mit zunehmender Atemnot zu entwickeln. Forscherinnen und Forscher vermuten auch, dass Sie unter Cannabis einem höheren Risiko ausgesetzt sind, Lungenkrebs zu entwickeln.
Angriff aufs junge Gehirn
Eine aktuelle Untersuchung warnt: Wenn Jugendliche kiffen, setzen sie sich besonderen Risiken aus. Im Gegensatz zu Erwachsenen ist die Hirnentwicklung bei jungen Menschen noch nicht vollends abgeschlossen. Wird das Gehirn regelmäßig mit THC geflutet, kann dies die Reifeprozesse und damit verbunden die Persönlichkeitsentwicklung stören. Allerdings scheinen nicht alle Jugendlichen, die Cannabis konsumieren, in gleicher Weise gefährdet. Neben der Konsumform und dem Konsumumfang spielen weitere Faktoren eine Rolle. Ob es unter Cannabis zu Entwicklungsstörungen kommt, hängt beispielsweise auch von der eigenen genetischen Veranlagung ab.
(46 votes)
Loading...
I assume your question refers to the current changes in cannabis legislation. And indeed I do not see any harmlessness of cannabis. Not only from the news articles you posted, but also from a comprehensive study, it is clear that cannabis is not harmless (e.g. CaPRis study of 2018). At the same time, however, it was found that the cannabis ban does not work. It does not make access to cannabis products more difficult or even prevented, especially not for young people. And because cannabis is not harmless and the ban does not work measurably (cf. EMCDDA (2023): Cannabis – the current situation in Europe), but at the same time causes many problems to arise, more and more countries are deviating from the ban. They therefore choose to leave cannabis to the completely free black market and strive to regulate the market and introduce rules. Only in this way can influence the spread, e.g. through age limits, conditions, licenses,… In illegality, on the other hand, state measures are virtually in vain; they have no influence on availability, especially not for young people.
In short, precisely because cannabis is not harmless and the ban creates more problems than solves, I think this market should be regulated by the state. In illegality, cannabis addresses more damage than on a legal and regulated market.
There has already been a similar situation. In the United States, alcohol was banned in 1920 because it was found that alcohol is not harmless and that it is harmless at both individual and social levels. But even here, the ban has not caused less people to drink (problematic). On the contrary, instead, in the 12 following years, a situation has evolved in which significantly more people have become ill or deceased by illegal alcohol, as the black market does not contain rules and controls for production and sale. Consumption has not declined but has only shifted into secret “speak easys”. At the same time, during the alcohol prohibition, organized crime was committed to the production of alcohol and thus an empire was built up. Last but not least for these reasons, the decision has been taken in 1933 to re-legalize alcohol in order to be at least better able to deal with the risks and thus to reduce the overall alcohol-related damage.
Best regards,
sandro by mudra / DigiStreet
Also on the topic of cannabis (in Germany):
I find it remarkable that state capitulation before crime should be the better way by making the state a “better dealer”. It would have been much more correct to pursue crime. Harder penalties, zero tolerance policy. And, of course, better education beforehand.
And this is the reason why the state thinks that it is necessary to take care of the sensitivities of drug addicts/consumers, even though they are solely responsible for getting illegally any substance. What is decisive is that no one has forced them to consumption! And if they decide, they must also live with the consequences. Are we talking about essential food? No. Then they should let it be, instead of indirectly, necessary for the state to provide for the “better fabric” because they themselves are not able to leave their fingers away and thus avoid all the consequences that the state must now protect the poor people paternalistally. What a lustful and double-moral “solution” and in a way also expectation.
Or is the state now also distributing helmets for illegal road races? So the poor rancher won’t hurt. Is the better solution than illegal races without helmets? If this is the restricted horizon, then good night…^^ The are not the two alternatives, but whether these races are legal or not. Of course they are not. The state has to stop illegal activities. It is not his task to beg people who do illegitimately illegitimate.
Either you (=legislative) has an attitude or not. And this is quite obvious that one is “actual” against consumption for the known reasons. Then you have to follow this line. No one can walk in opposite directions at the same time. So think, but act differently. I would judge it differently if the government were to classify consumption as harmless and therefore a (regulated) release took place. But this is not their conviction – which meant the ignorance of the technical assessment – at least when one listens to Lauterbach.
Not personally, but my opinion on the new legislation.
….Of course, I am opposed to legalization (as a “product”). I have a clear attitude: There’s nothing more superfluous than this shit! That’s it. That’s not an opinion. Whoever’s clear in his head, admits that. And whoever, however, thinks that it is necessary to destroy laws, has a strong one on the waffle, and should then bathe the consequences themselves. You don’t have to loosen laws for that. Let it be easy, then there’s no bad crap. This option always exists.
I’ll tell you your text: you have anger against people who consume marijuana. Whoever does that, in your opinion, has harmed his right of existence.
I think it’s good that you’re active on this platform and give you the chance to take into account other aspects of this topic. You offer us a way of looking at people that simplifies and thus does not realistically calculate the dynamics of a society. What exactly do you expect? Do you really want a proper discussion? Or do you want “Yes, you can use the Canabis consumption as a projection area for your anger”?
The BtMG exists for more than 50 years. A law that, despite hard punishments, supply and demand have multiplied since then.
Hey, DonkeyShot! Thank you for your detailed comment! It is completely understandable that the idea that the state could interfere in drug trafficking seems to be alienating first. However, when dealing more closely with the subject, market-regulated approaches to drug policy offer substantial advantages, both for individuals and for society. And that finally comes to all good.
In order to be able to understand my attitude, it is important to understand that I do not consider the consumption of certain substances, such as cannabis, as moral failure. It seems that our views are very different;-) In general, I understand drug use as a health issue. And reality now shows that prohibition rarely leads to a reduction in consumption, but rather contributes to the blooming of a black market that is neither safe nor regulated (see, for example, the failed alcohol prohibition in the USA). By regulating and legalising the market, the state can control the quality and safety of the substances, provide consumer protection and ensure that education and aid are easily accessible to consumers.
In addition, regulation enables police and judicial resources to be used more effectively. Instead of investing enormous sums in the persecution and punishment of consumers, these funds can flow into prevention programs, education and health services. This leads not only to a healthier society, but also to a relief from the judicial systems. However, the appropriate accompanying measures – and above all prevention – must of course be well designed, comprehensive and coordinated.
I also think it is important to observe individual autonomy. Here, too, I take your comment that you see it differently. Of course, no one is forced to consume, yet many people in reality decide for various personal reasons to consume certain substances. How do you see this in other risky consumer topics such as alcohol / cigarettes / porn? Would you just say in these areas, “Even guilt if someone gets a problem?” State regulation instead of a complete ban respects personal choice and at the same time provides a framework that minimizes risks.
Unfortunately, the analogy with helmets for illegal road races is far too short. While illegal races pose a direct threat to others, the consumption of substances such as cannabis in a regulated environment can be largely risk-free. The comparison therefore suggests that the social and individual consequences are not comparable.
It is a complex debate, but history has shown that a prohibition often brings more damage than benefits. In my knowledge, a simple solution such as “more persecution pressure” has never worked to meet as complex issues such as drug use and drug trafficking (see, for example, the increased police presence in and around the Görlitzer Park in Berlin, which has only led to a shift in the problems in neighbouring areas and not to a reduction in drug trafficking – despite the many resources invested here). Therefore, in my opinion, it is not unreasonable or morally questionable if the State intervenes in a regulatory manner to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. By decriminalizing and rationalising the issue, we as society can work better and support people who need help more effectively. Greetings!
In front of alcohol is a multiple worse than weed. A healthy person does not die from Weed, even the withdrawal is relatively easy.
With an alcohol withdrawal you can die with a high probability. And also from consumption, you can die. Alcohol is pure poison for the body. And it brings aggressions. You also have nausea, depression, heart/lungs/beating problems and is forgetful.
Why do you harm alcohol so much, and Weed is supposed to be extremely harmful.
No German man complains about alcohol, but about Weed, they can all talk suddenly.
In addition, addiction (from Weed) can work very normally and quickly, they also have a good memory and are completely ready for use.
My neighbor has been dependent on Weed for 20 years and is a successful nurse. She’s not stupid or something.
Unfortunately everything is true and I see it as well.
I know some people who like it and whom you acknowledge consumption.
Unfortunately, this is totally harmless by regular consumers.
Cannabis is not for free for young people.
The KCang was made to improve the legal situation of adults.
Prohibition never helps, but worsens the problem.
should then also make koks, heroin, fentanyl etc. legal?
There are methadone charges. People who are dependent, but out of the addiction, get corresponding substitutes from the state.
Whether the actual substance is also released depends on the danger and the banability. Fly mushrooms and rabies (in southern Germany) grow in nature. The ingredients for making ecstasy are legal, you can’t do much against it.
But heroin and cocaine are much more dangerous than canabis (think: there are no letaldosis for canabis, cocaine and heroin can be fatal doses) and the ingredients do not occur in the environment of a human.
Definitely decriminalized.
Who will harm you?
People who ask if cannabis is being demolished.
Of course, there’s conflagration. They started in the USA in 1936 with this unspeakable anti-propaganda strip:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness
After the end of the alcohol trial, Harry Anslinger needed new victims.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
Because of precisely such drives, incl. The fact that in Nevada, possession of cannabis was sometimes a lifeblood is the relationship of many people to cannabis is still characterized by irrational paranoia and hatred.
Seriously, please.
Yes cool, 23 days and ~23 screen lengths later and we still don’t know who harms cannabis.
And your studies. This is always so ne to argue “great” way if you cannot argue yourself. Then refers to the existence or the non-existency of studies. And then you want to get “General Law.” One has the studies in the back or the NIcht studies, which are referred to as pseudo evidence for the falsehood of a situation.
This is how you want to prove everything possible with your “non-studies”.
I’m annoyed. Let it go. I like to discuss the plausibility of a thought. Everyone can then enter with his own thinking. And we stay in mind. The study(pseudo)promises this discussion. And it’s unprofessional. If you want to make a real check, this begins with the selection of the study. We must agree to what study we all find acceptable here. Otherwise, HINTERHER comes someone like you and says with every study result that doesn’t fit him that it is invalid.
Furthermore, you have to be good scientifically to get the right conclusions. No correlation with implications. Understanding significance levels.
Here too, you didn’t suggest that you were careful.
Yes then, please write far-sighted, refer to more aspects. As you write above, at least you don’t look at me like someone who really argues here.
In my opinion on Canabis: I find weak, smoking Canabis and not doing it*. And to me, people are going crazy on the nerves that are staging mega with their canabis consumption. Point. Nevertheless, I respect that consumption offers many people a quality of life. You can relax and look forward to it. That this is not my thing and I find it irresponsible to my own lungs, that is on another sheet. And it is at least not so dangerous that this is a risk of death – I do not think that the low likelihoods of a psychosis development in adulthood can be taken seriously as a weighty argument to ban adult riffing. I also know a lot too many people who have been coughing regularly for years (about every week at least once) and have not received psychosis. Of such acquaintances (with skateboarders and musicians – there is ciffs almost a good tone) a few hundred people come together, so my personal experience is already statistically relevant.
*In addition, the reason I already reveal in a question (here on a good question) is that with me it doesn’t matter if I smoke a joint. So I don’t know what makes people feel when they’re grounded. That’s why I’m limited in judgement, I can’t talk about how much you miss.
No studies have been submitted for examination…
And I consume med. Cannabis myself.
There is no hatred from my side against cannabis as such.
And how scientific is your access a la: I puste my opinion out, while I pamper on the reality balance, I just let myself drift away from my hatred. And if a study – just a reality indicator – comes that doesn’t match my assessment, then I say that it’s probably wrong. In this way, I just pick up the results that confirm my assessment.
As a result, you do not contribute to proper discussion. But you feel good and then you don’t need to take any effort on you because you don’t have to develop.
🤝
Yes, that is a moderate contrast to you and should actually be the final word of this discussion here.
Note the chosen word.
I guess so.
Anyway, they didn’t steal.
Whether this is freely available for adults has no negative effect on young people compared to illegality for all, but allegedly even a positive effect.
That’s correct. Nevertheless, there are mutations. You don’t know who lied about anything. There are no hard, measurable facts like body size.
I think that is also taken into account in the evaluation. Of a certain percentage of liars, I guess.
😏
The old problem: I myself had to take part in several studies during my studies (also self-examination questionnaires) and I lied in part because I thought: “Sorry, but that’s what you’re doing!”
There are many over a long time.
Probably like the shell youth study. It’s not more than a self-examination.
But the Dutch youths would probably have less reason to lie than their neighbours where it is a crime.
Good for her!
How valid are the studies?
In NL for decades fewer young people have been recruited than in neighbouring countries.
That’s the question.
What does the youth think?
(a) If cannabis is legal, it’s boring and I can’t rebel. Then I’ll leave it!
(b) If cannabis is legal, it must be harmless and you get much easier. I’ll try!
As if legally purchased cannabis would not be passed on to younger people…
And this has nothing to do with legalization.
That’s why a 15-year-old doesn’t cry.
On the contrary, if we had a proper legalization with coffee shops with age control and also with cheaper prices than on the black market, the number of dealers (the only source for young people) would decrease rapidly.
Don’t affect me. I consider the subject critical and realistic.
Cannabis with THC is now not a combillet, but potentially harmful to health. For this reason, one should get comprehensive information about consumption and make a risk assessment.
But I strongly assume that the 15-year-old chick does NOT do that at a party. As a result, a permanent stay in the psychiatry can be due to chronic derealization, depersonalization, memory, concentration, drive and motivation problems as well as fears and depression.