Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well I completed a project today that I've been working on for 1-1/2 years, so not only am I going to smoke some copious quantities of Skunk #1 later, after I take the better half to a dinner involving numerous dead animals, I'm also going to smoke a lovely Cuban cigar I brought back from Hong Kong.

So somebody call me a doctor before I go psychotic and/or die of lung cancer and/or high levels of cholesterol.

But do it tomorrow, please.

 

[shira]

Let's assume all of this bad news about pot is true.

So what? Lots of stuff people do is self-destructive or potentially harmful (driving fast, mountain biking, over-eating, listening to loud music, . . . .)

What's the answer? Make it illegal to do anything that might be harmful? Is that what you're advocating?

The true answer is: Keep (or make) all these things legal. Control only behavior that is potentially harmful to others (like smoking weed while operating an automobile). Let people know the risks of various behaviors. Then let them make their own decisions.

It's called "freedom", Rip. Freedom doesn't mean merely allowing people to do only "good" things. It means also allowing people to do potentially self-destructive things.

Of course, living in a free society also should mean that if you choose to do things that are potentially harmful, or are doing things that may or may not be harmful but which any reasonable person knows may entail risk (such as using too much artificial sweetener), then you accept the responsibility and consequences of your actions and don't go crying for restitution when you get hurt.

I'm willing to live in a FREE society, Rip. Are you?

 

[Stunt]

Yes! No Weed, no fast food, no loud music, no sex, no fun!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Obviously you are one that says cigars don't cause cancer. After all, look at George Burns claims to have smoked at least one cigar every day for most of his life.

I don't recall saying that. In fact, I'm one of the strongest advocates killing the tobacco companies and trying every tobacco exec for the last fifty years for crimes against humanity.

Now, given your signature, I will proclaim you to be a liar whose very words support the tobacco industries which have directly led to millions of people dieing. thus, Harvey lied and millions died. After all, you can't prove your claim. Right?

Fix your signature, it is wrong, you know it, and thus, it really is a lie.

How lovely. This is the second thread of Rip's you've crapped all over and sidetracked by calling me a liar and challenging my sig. Here's the other one.

Now, since you've already done it, I'll give you the same reply.

My sig file is only four words long. Are you literacy challenged? Allow me to assist you:

Bush -- George W. Bush, the current President of the United States of America.

LIED -- Deliberately spoke falsehoods.

Thousands -- An order of magnitude greater than hundreds, but less than millions.

DIED -- Ceased living.

If you're still having problems understanding the meaning of these four words, maybe this will help:

Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Michael Ewens

American Military Casualties in Iraq

American Deaths In Combat:

Since war began (3/19/03):
Total: 1677
In Combat: 1314

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)
Total: 1540
In Combat: 1205

Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
Total: 1210
In Combat: 1009

Since Handover (6/29/04):
Total: 811
In Combat: 681

Since Election (1/31/05):
Total: 245
In Combat: 208

Total American Wounded:
Official: 12762
Estimated: 15000 - 38000

Latest Fatality June 6th, 2005
Page last updated 06/7/05 11:23 am EDT

Obviously does not include those reported killed so far, today, 6-8-05. It also does not include the multiples of the above deaths to innocent Iraqi citizens.

The implicaton the statement in my sig file is that these deaths are the direct and immediate result of Bush's lies. Is that specific enough? :roll:

You then challenged my use of the word, LIE, so I'll give you that answer, too.

Bush is a lying piece of sh8. His adventure in Iraq was an ELECTIVE war, and it was all based on LIES! His lies have cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of other lives and trillions of dollars (terra-bucks) that could and should have been used for the needs of American citizens and to fund our real defense needs. Your great great grandchildren will be paying for the trillions of dollars in deficits this war has caused... And he has the balls to cry and lie about funding Social Security. :roll:

The Bushwhackos ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clark, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clark also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

They didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :|

They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :|

They lied to U.S. citizens and the world about their ever shifting reasons for going to war:

• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no WMD's in Iraq.
  
• I'll say it again. There were no WMD's in Iraq.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's!

However, another of his lies has more sinister overtones. Bush sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium for nuclear weapons. Ambassador Wilson returned to report that there was NO nuclear materials or evidence that any Iraqis were anywhere to be seen, but Bush continued to repeat the LIE in public as if he believed it was there.

At that point, Ambassador Wilson went public with his findings, and the Bush administration was so pissed that they outed his wife, Valerie Plame as a top undercover CIA agent.

Anyone who did that should be shot for treason. :|

Unless you can PROVE to someone who doesn't want to believe it, your signature is a lie. Right?

Wrong. A lie is a lie, regardless of how ignorant and blind you may wish to remain.

PS. That is meant to point out the fallacy in a humous manner. If you have no humor, don't read it. Oops, too late.

There is no fallacy, and I see no humor in the lives and national treasure Bush's LIES have cost or in your lame attempt to blow smoke and diffuse the truth. Your petty, failed parsing of words is meaningless and devoid of intellectual content.

If you keep dogging me and calling me a liar, I'll make it a point to show you why it's not a good idea.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Not to mention that the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers.

Not to mention that your typical pot smoker doesn't smoke nearly as often as a tobacco smoker.

 

[randym431]

Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses

Well. Now we can explain Rush and O'Reilly.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: randym431

Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses

Well. Now we can explain Rush and O'Reilly.

And George W. Bush.

The "W" stands for "Weed". :laugh:

 

[Sysbuilder05]

Ohhhh....I'm all a skared now!!!

Give me a break,back in the sixties the governement came out with a bogus medical "finding" that taking some hits of acid would cause chromosome damage. If you had children they would be severly handicapped at birth.

Basically it was Nixon and his Nazi's trying to get a handle on young kids. He didn't need them on acid,he needed them in Vietnam.

 

[nageov3t]

Topic Title: Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses

fortunately, you won't mind as much since you'll be high

 

[NeenerNeener]

Are the voices in my head bothering you?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Not to mention that the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers.

Not to mention that your typical pot smoker doesn't smoke nearly as often as a tobacco smoker.

AAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thump553]

I've met many a depressed drunk, but I can't say I've ever met a depressed pot smoker. Never.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Are the voices in my head bothering you?

I though those were the voices in my head.

 

[rickn]

Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses

just think, you got there and you never even had to touch a joint

 

[arsbanned]

How about the effects of alcohol on the brain and other organs? It's legal. Explain that, RIP.

 

[nutxo]

It's amazing what a person can be attacked for in this hole.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: nutxo
It's amazing what a person can be attacked for in this hole.

I don't see anybody being attacked, people are just pointing out that maybe getting all worked up about one particular habit that could be damaging seems a little silly. A study comparing "regular" users of weed to regular users of alcohol would probably be very interesting.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nutxo
It's amazing what a person can be attacked for in this hole.

I don't see anybody being attacked, people are just pointing out that maybe getting all worked up about one particular habit that could be damaging seems a little silly. A study comparing "regular" users of weed to regular users of alcohol would probably be very interesting.

I see drugs the way liberals see religion.

A crutch for the weak and stupid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
How about the effects of alcohol on the brain and other organs? It's legal. Explain that, RIP.

Heh. Alcohol usage is tracked by counting the number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver.

Originally posted by: nutxo
It's amazing what a person can be attacked for in this hole.

It's junk science. Political propaganda. Go have another beer while bitching about the potheads. :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nutxo
It's amazing what a person can be attacked for in this hole.

I don't see anybody being attacked, people are just pointing out that maybe getting all worked up about one particular habit that could be damaging seems a little silly. A study comparing "regular" users of weed to regular users of alcohol would probably be very interesting.

I see drugs the way liberals see religion.

A crutch for the weak and stupid.

Judging from that statement, it's obvious one doesn't need a crutch to be weak and stupid.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: nutxo

I see drugs the way liberals see religion.

A crutch for the weak and stupid.

Not everybody considers recreational drugs a way of life. Most people consider them to be something much less profound: recreation. Referring to drugs as a crutch is just as silly as referring music as a crutch because "real men have fun staring at a wall" or whatever.

Religion, however, is fundamentally a way of life. One would refer to it as a crutch because it is rather weak (in some peoples' minds) to base your way of life around convenient lies.

Sure, there are some drug users who turn their fun into obsession, and make their drug of choice into a way of life. But those people are in a very small minority of drug users. I think you'd be surprised how many "normal" people light up every once in a while.

 

[Steeplerot]

look out rip....evil weed! ASSassin of youth...

At least the propaganda back then had hotties with huge spliffs on their laps..*yawn*

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: nutxo

I see drugs the way liberals see religion.

A crutch for the weak and stupid.

Not everybody considers recreational drugs a way of life. Most people consider them to be something much less profound: recreation. Referring to drugs as a crutch is just as silly as referring music as a crutch because "real men have fun staring at a wall" or whatever.

Religion, however, is fundamentally a way of life. One would refer to it as a crutch because it is rather weak (in some peoples' minds) to base your way of life around convenient lies.

Sure, there are some drug users who turn their fun into obsession, and make their drug of choice into a way of life. But those people are in a very small minority of drug users. I think you'd be surprised how many "normal" people light up every once in a while.

Kinda like the people who go to church on sunday to feel good but dont really do the "religion thing" all the time?

Same thing. Something that either side can consider an artificial way to feel good.

Social drug user or drinkers you say? Got me there, I would hardly consider church a social function.

Radical christians = Alcholics and druggies?

Casual drug users = sunday christians?

The parallels are there.

I grew up in Oak park. I doubt there's anything on this planet that would surprise me.

 

[Forsythe]

I can confirm!
Smoking 10 joints pr. day will increase any mental instability you have.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Kinda like the people who go to church on sunday to feel good but dont really do the "religion thing" all the time?

Same thing. Something that either side can consider an artificial way to feel good.

Do the Sunday Christians believe in anything that is in the Bible? Believe in it? If you answer the affirmative, that immediately puts them several orders of magnitude higher on the "is this a way of life?" scale than casual drug users. There is no belief involved in taking a toke. No more than eating a meal or taking a piss or having sex.

Social drug user or drinkers you say? Got me there, I would hardly consider church a social function.

Uh, no I didn't say.

Radical christians = Alcholics and druggies?

Casual drug users = sunday christians?

The parallels are there.

See first point.

I grew up in Oak park. I doubt there's anything on this planet that would surprise me.

Yo yo yo, let me back up off yo grill g, I dint mean no disrespec! Oak Park represent dawg!