Is today's marijuana 25x more dangerous than in 1970?

[mesthead21]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: mesthead21

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: yllus

Indeed, just this past February, the European Respiratory Journal reported on a New Zealand study indicating that long term cannabis use increases the annual risk of lung cancer in young adults by 8% for every year of use.

this part should have been bolded as well.

Originally posted by: yllusHere, skunk is known as "bud," because, as one young adolescent in Smyth's practice told his 70s-minded mother: "Mom, we don't smoke the leaves. We throw the leaves out. We just smoke the buds."

what do you think people were doing with the buds back in the 70s? throwing them away? the shake was good for cooking, rolling and cheap sales. bud has always been the main smoke however. i had friends that used to grow (in the middle of tempe even) and they came up with ways to make seriously sticky buds. one-hit wonder it was called around their circles. im not surprised to see this article at all. im sure most will call shens and say its biased and whatever, but regardless im not surprised.

Tempe???? In Arizona??? Thats crazy, i go to school there.

yup, there was 3 houses over on hermosa and mill they grew it in. the backyard, hehe. hidden by rose bushes. i cracked up that they never got busted and spent as little time there as i could to make sure i wasnt mixed up in it.

Wow hermosa and mill is about a 1/4 mile from my old house... haha that is awesome

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh FFS, reefer madness is not real. :roll:

Any drug if abused will cause health issues, but those of cannabis are downright mild to non-existent compared to other drugs.

Something like half of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. So you'll pardon if I don't care much about the stoned couch potato blathering about black helicopters.

sure it is, i go mad when i run out of reefer 😛

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh FFS, reefer madness is not real. :roll:

Any drug if abused will cause health issues, but those of cannabis are downright mild to non-existent compared to other drugs.

Something like half of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. So you'll pardon if I don't care much about the stoned couch potato blathering about black helicopters.

sure it is, i go mad when i run out of reefer 😛

The google ads for this thread are funny..=)

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: scott916
I could see someone's already present condition being exacerbated by some of the side effects of bud, such as paranoia, but my point is that marijuana doesn't CAUSE psychosis. Not in 1970, and not now.

i wonder how many people diagnosed as "drug induced..." were just grouped together? is there a "cocaine induced psychosis" or a "LSD induced psychosis" or categories for other drugs?

btw, wtf is FUD stand for? new term for me...

Here you go bud!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._uncertainty_and_doubt

It's a frequent term on slashdot.

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh FFS, reefer madness is not real. :roll:

Any drug if abused will cause health issues, but those of cannabis are downright mild to non-existent compared to other drugs.

Something like half of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. So you'll pardon if I don't care much about the stoned couch potato blathering about black helicopters.

sure it is, i go mad when i run out of reefer 😛

Wow, we would get along so well IRL.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: preslove
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

There is no firm consensus that there are any real "effects." It is just as likely that the social stigma of drug use or fear of legal sanction are responsible for increased likelihood of psychosis, and not the actual drug itself. Or, a predisposition to schizophrenia could also predispose someone to drug abuse.

There is no evidence of a *causal* link.

Do you understand how to discuss a topic without putting words in the other person's mouth?

No, no firm consensus exists. Does that mean that the results of a study published in a serious journal should be tossed aside? Or in your case, the summary not even read? To save you the click, regularing causality, I'll copy and paste it for you below:

The most important problems in studying the relation between cannabis use and psychosis are reverse causality and the transitory intoxication effect. If individuals with imminent psychotic disorder start to use cannabis to alleviate symptoms, the psychosis could be causing the cannabis use, rather than the other way around.

In most of the studies included in the present meta-analysis, Theresa Moore and colleagues were able to adjust for the effect of psychotic or imminent psychotic symptoms and they were able to ensure that psychotic outcomes were not due to the transitory effect of intoxication.

The ultimate proof of a causal relation would be a large-scale placebo-controlled randomised trial of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the principal psychoactive component of cannabis) exposure in healthy young people with long-term follow-up. Since cannabis is illegal in most countries and its harmful effect on cognitive function is already well established, such a trial cannot be done because of practical and ethical reasons.

However, there are a few small, short-term trials comparing cannabis and placebo in psychotic and non-psychotic people who were regular cannabis users. Until now, only two trials have been published that indicated that cannabis is responsible for transient exacerbation in psychotic core features. On the basis of such trials, the long-term effects could not be established, but the results indicate that there is at least a transitory psychotic effect, which theoretically correlates with the results of observational studies.

Results from both observational and experimental studies warrant investigation of whether dysfunction of the cannabinoid receptor system contributes to the pathophysiology of psychotic disorders in the range of schizophrenia.

In the public debate, cannabis has been considered a more or less harmless drug compared with alcohol, central stimulants, and opioids. However, the potential long-term hazardous effects of cannabis with regard to psychosis seem to have been overlooked, and there is a need to warn the public of these dangers, as well as to establish treatment to help young frequent cannabis users.

I'll also add that contrary to the words that sometimes get formed in between the drool coming out of TruePaige's mouth, I don't have a side in this issue. Rational adults are welcome to shoot up with battery acid for all that I care; it's your body to do with as you please.

I do find it interesting that possible evidence that something people ingest could be more dangerous that initially presumed is dismissed in this blind a manner, and that people simply asking a question can instantly be assigned a label.

 

[Ns1]

herb is great

it's not more dangerous than lsd or ecstacy, no fucking way

it also relieves many ills, much better than the prescription meds that are offered as alternatives, with less side effects to boot.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: scott916
I could see someone's already present condition being exacerbated by some of the side effects of bud, such as paranoia, but my point is that marijuana doesn't CAUSE psychosis. Not in 1970, and not now.

i wonder how many people diagnosed as "drug induced..." were just grouped together? is there a "cocaine induced psychosis" or a "LSD induced psychosis" or categories for other drugs?

btw, wtf is FUD stand for? new term for me...

Here you go bud!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._uncertainty_and_doubt

It's a frequent term on slashdot.

ah, thanks. makes sense, there is a lot of fear mongering where drugs and pot is concerned. personally, i have seen too many people not reach their potential or just waste away due to it. not any more than from alcohol tho. if it were legal at least revenue could be gleaned from it. as for the addiction part, it is truly addictive. ive seen that first hand over the course of my life. its just not a physical addiction. some people get so used to the feeling of euphoria it gives that they crave and need it after a time. sure, its usually people that are prone to addiction before they even try it, but it is still there. i dont have an addictive personality overall and quit smoking a long time ago, as well as am able to go to a bar for a 5 hour stint and only drink 2 drinks all night hanging with buds. i couldnt care less if people smoke it, i just hate seeing people blather on about it being harmless, when burning anything and taking it into your lungs is harmful to some degree. the fact that pot as carcinogens puts that much more emphasis on the maybe. how many people that got lung cancer over the last 3 or 4 decades and smoked pot are really going to fess up to their doc that they have been smoking it for years? they will say "well, ya i smoke... cigarettes..." most likely. any studies on this issue are going to be skewed in whatever direction the primary person wants them to.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: scott916
I could see someone's already present condition being exacerbated by some of the side effects of bud, such as paranoia, but my point is that marijuana doesn't CAUSE psychosis. Not in 1970, and not now.

i wonder how many people diagnosed as "drug induced..." were just grouped together? is there a "cocaine induced psychosis" or a "LSD induced psychosis" or categories for other drugs?

btw, wtf is FUD stand for? new term for me...

Here you go bud!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._uncertainty_and_doubt

It's a frequent term on slashdot.

ah, thanks. makes sense, there is a lot of fear mongering where drugs and pot is concerned. personally, i have seen too many people not reach their potential or just waste away due to it. not any more than from alcohol tho. if it were legal at least revenue could be gleaned from it. as for the addiction part, it is truly addictive. ive seen that first hand over the course of my life. its just not a physical addiction. some people get so used to the feeling of euphoria it gives that they crave and need it after a time. sure, its usually people that are prone to addiction before they even try it, but it is still there. i dont have an addictive personality overall and quit smoking a long time ago, as well as am able to go to a bar for a 5 hour stint and only drink 2 drinks all night hanging with buds. i couldnt care less if people smoke it, i just hate seeing people blather on about it being harmless, when burning anything and taking it into your lungs is harmful to some degree. the fact that pot as carcinogens puts that much more emphasis on the maybe. how many people that got lung cancer over the last 3 or 4 decades and smoked pot are really going to fess up to their doc that they have been smoking it for years? they will say "well, ya i smoke... cigarettes..." most likely. any studies on this issue are going to be skewed in whatever direction the primary person wants them to.

edit: wow, i put "quit smoking a long time ago" instead of typing drinking like i meant. i have yet to quit smoking, thats the one thing i cant seem to drop.

edit-edit:

weird, i clicked the edit button and it quoted myself into a new post.

 

[Kadarin]

"War on Drugs" propaganda like this is essentially scare-mongering crap research. When I was growing up in the 70s/80s, they would tell us then that "today's marijuana is way, way more powerful than what we had back in the 60s". Now, they're saying the same thing. At this rate, it'll be the most potent stuff we've ever seen...

 

[mesthead21]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: scott916
I could see someone's already present condition being exacerbated by some of the side effects of bud, such as paranoia, but my point is that marijuana doesn't CAUSE psychosis. Not in 1970, and not now.

i wonder how many people diagnosed as "drug induced..." were just grouped together? is there a "cocaine induced psychosis" or a "LSD induced psychosis" or categories for other drugs?

btw, wtf is FUD stand for? new term for me...

Here you go bud!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._uncertainty_and_doubt

It's a frequent term on slashdot.

ah, thanks. makes sense, there is a lot of fear mongering where drugs and pot is concerned. personally, i have seen too many people not reach their potential or just waste away due to it. not any more than from alcohol tho. if it were legal at least revenue could be gleaned from it. as for the addiction part, it is truly addictive. ive seen that first hand over the course of my life. its just not a physical addiction. some people get so used to the feeling of euphoria it gives that they crave and need it after a time. sure, its usually people that are prone to addiction before they even try it, but it is still there. i dont have an addictive personality overall and quit smoking a long time ago, as well as am able to go to a bar for a 5 hour stint and only drink 2 drinks all night hanging with buds. i couldnt care less if people smoke it, i just hate seeing people blather on about it being harmless, when burning anything and taking it into your lungs is harmful to some degree. the fact that pot as carcinogens puts that much more emphasis on the maybe. how many people that got lung cancer over the last 3 or 4 decades and smoked pot are really going to fess up to their doc that they have been smoking it for years? they will say "well, ya i smoke... cigarettes..." most likely. any studies on this issue are going to be skewed in whatever direction the primary person wants them to.

edit: wow, i put "quit smoking a long time ago" instead of typing drinking like i meant. i have yet to quit smoking, thats the one thing i cant seem to drop.

edit-edit:

weird, i clicked the edit button and it quoted myself into a new post.

There we go, thats much better

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Heller

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh FFS, reefer madness is not real. :roll:

Any drug if abused will cause health issues, but those of cannabis are downright mild to non-existent compared to other drugs.

Something like half of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. So you'll pardon if I don't care much about the stoned couch potato blathering about black helicopters.

sure it is, i go mad when i run out of reefer 😛

Wow, we would get along so well IRL.

lmao i love your sig :beer:

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: hopeless74

Originally posted by: scott916
I could see someone's already present condition being exacerbated by some of the side effects of bud, such as paranoia, but my point is that marijuana doesn't CAUSE psychosis. Not in 1970, and not now.

being over paranoid is a common side effect of dope

thats a mild form of psychosis right there.

fact

it's not a side effect of dope. it's a side effect of being prosecuted for smoking dope. I never experienced paranoia in amsterdam. :roll:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

no MJ related deaths have not increased at all.

 

[Heller]

this thread is officially ATOT Stoner thread rofl.

 

[Eli]

:sigh;

I'm sure this thread went well. As if it hasn't already been said..

No, its not more dangerous. If you think it is, you don't understand the marijuana high.

If I want to get high, I'll smoke a bowl. If the bowl is full of low grade marijuana, I'll smoke the whole thing, maybe two.

If the bowl is full of high grade marijuana, I might only take one or two puffs.

Get it? It's really as simple as that. Infact, I would venture to say that the high grade marijuana is better for you since you have to smoke less of it for the desired effect.

 

[ch33zw1z]

done posting tonight, lost my cool

 

[Baked]

Yes please.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

It makes me feel good, works as a social lubricant like alcohol, and takes away headaches and soreness. Seems good to me.

 

[Xyclone]

New growing techniques (indoor, etc.) and more care while growing the plant means more THC in the end. Properly grown and cured strains today are extremely potent, and that is great if a smoker is worried about his lungs. 1-3 hits compared to 1-3 bowls.

 

[miketheidiot]

for those in disbelief about the lcd comment, the effects of lcd diminish each time you use it (making is absolutely not addictive) and there is one reported death from lcd, a woman who took something like 100 thousand doses at once.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
for those in disbelief about the lcd comment, the effects of lcd diminish each time you use it (making is absolutely not addictive) and there is one reported death from lcd, a woman who took something like 100 thousand doses at once.

you uh mean lsd?

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
for those in disbelief about the lcd comment, the effects of lcd diminish each time you use it (making is absolutely not addictive) and there is one reported death from lcd, a woman who took something like 100 thousand doses at once.

you uh mean lsd?

See his SN.


And the new title to this thread should be:

Is today's marijuana 25x more awesome than in 1970?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Stop spreading FUD OP. It's not dangerous and only moronic "War on Drugs" supporters believe that.

:roll:

A bit like questioning anthropogenic global warming, you do it and you're committing a hate crime.

Seriously, read the crap you just wrote and tell me you don't mean it.

Dug, this is ATOT, please do not use words like anthropogenic. It confuses people. Me, for example.

I think it's hawt when he talks all sciencey.

Nothing worse than a horny and sticky nakedfrog!

 

[mattocs]

It is still safe. Safer than alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.

Getting high and driving, in public, etc. is dumb. Laws should be enforced. But if I want to get high in my home, why can't I? Who am I hurting?