i've hacked up a lung after hitting a vap. Of courses its still not nearly as bad as say a doob or something.
This study is worthless, untill we have something with amounts, it's not clear if just smoking it will make you have that risk, or if smoking 5grams pr. day will.
history shows that abolition of alcohol didn't work, but criminalized marijuana reduces marijuana use greatly. I don't like people going to jail for some weed, that's a waste of resources.
so I?m not arguing for anything, because i don?t know what should be done overall. I do know that I?d like to see the medical marijuana bill pass the house this week.
historically the word used is "fruit of the vine" so technically it's possible that Jesus and his disciples never drank more alcohol than you'd find in a non-alcoholic beer. Did this occur? no one in the bible ever made a point of saying so, so I?m guessing it was all standard wine for the time *about 1/8th the potency of wine today*. As for intoxication: i doubt that Jesus was ever intoxicated or helped others become intoxicated and if you can't go to the Lord for your joy then you need to get right with him.
I do hope that you guys do this, it?ll be enlightening, to you as well rip, as an honest look at this makes it very hard to come down on one side or the other.
every mental disorder in a population is on a bell curve, if you suffer from a very mild level of schizophrenia. Marijuana, even on an irregular basis, may well push you into life-style affecting schizophrenia
honest discourse requires that you look earnestly at the arguments of the opposing side. Your contributions are lacking any substance if you simply say ?nah, anything that disagrees with me must be a liar?, that sort of argument is one based on faith and thus should be dismissed out of hand.
good point, quantity potency regularity and pool must all be looked at for a scientific observation of the relative dangers.
but the fact that it can be dangerous to some is factual, and those arguing against that fact are without basis.
I think most people are aware that abuse is harmfull, whether use is harmfull is yet to be shown. Everything with moderation.
Too much water can be fatal. What's your point? Should we ban narcotic pain relievers? They are far more dangerous than pot yet they're used in everyday medicine.
Recently most Cox2 inhibitors were taken off the market because of an increase in heart attack risk.
What's so different about pot that makes it the only drug too dangerous to be used for pain relief?
Recently most Cox2 inhibitors were taken off the market because of an increase in heart attack risk.
What's so different about pot that makes it the only drug too dangerous to be used for pain relief?
God's created everything for a reason, it's the time place and reason for it's use that's to be debated.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I like how opponents ignore the fact that prohibition of marijuana is not working.
O K. Who here said marijuana makes people smart?
I don't think I have ever known anyone who couldn't quit smoking pot. I mean, alcoholism is a big problem in our country. Drunk drivers, beaten wives, the list goes on, but where are the problems in this country with marijuana? If there are any, it's with abuse by children and teens. NO ONE here proposes we allow children/teenagers be able to consume marijuana legally. Prohibition has completely and totally failed to prevent children/teenagers from getting their hands on pot. Decriminalizing and regulating it would be a MUCH better way of keeping it out of young hands.
As of now, the revenues and profits of marijuana sales put money into the pockets of criminals, gangs, druglords. Decriminalizing and regulating it would put that money back in the pockets of not only legitimate businesses and employees, but the tax revenue could go to education, healthcare, social security, basically, it gets back to the pockets of the tax payers.
My guess:
Increase in developmental problems, lower GDP, increase in medical problems associated with smoking in general and overeating and car accidents, increase in drug dependency and general intoxication combined with greater child neglect and apathy.
A decrees in the number of non-violent offenders in our jails, a decrease in spousal abuse, a reduction of cash flow for the aforementioned groups and a dramatic decrease in the stock price of alcohol producers and mongers.
List isn?t all inclusive, but does provide, at least partly, a look at the issues involved.
i honestly don't think this is the case. i don't think the number of users would change all that much - and on top of this the users wouldn't being doing anything illegal. currently i think pot is more of a "gateway drug" simply b/c it's illegal and once you are doing this one illegal thing you are more likely to do more illegal things (not just other illegal drugs but other activities in general). i see little difference between legal pot and legal alcohol.
You do realize that medical pot isn't going to make smoking pot legal for everyone, right? Why not handle it like any other prescription drug? If you get caught with an illegal prescription drug in your possession, you get arrested and spend some time in jail and pay a fine. Well, that is, unless you're Rush Limbaugh.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Glad I live in California. Possession of under an ounce is a ticket offense technically called "an infraction."
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSH8! I've beeen around pot smokers since I was a long haired musician in the 60's, and I still enjoy a toke, now and then. I've known guys who rolled out of bed, lit up and kept stoned all day, and they had their own problems, but that was because they had problems, pot or not.
Most people don't smoke 20 1/4" thick joints a day (the equivalent of a pack a day tobacco smoker) by themselves. In fact, if they could, and they were still standing after the first joint that big, they got burned because the crap they bought wasn't worth squat. If the pot's that bad, lighting up is wasting a perfectly good match.
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.
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.
I see, Harvey has to prove something for it to be true, but you only have to proclaim it for it to be true.
Why doesn't that surprise me????
Hi Conjur, if your lurking, you should really be enjoying this thread!!
Your right, being held to higher standards means being more complete. As it turns out you are right, of course. George didn't smoke 1 cigar a day for most of his life.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA...ves/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,640,00.html
(excerpt)
On any given day, he smoked 10 to 15 cigars
Thanks for keeping me accurate clarifying.
You misunderstand of course. So, here is the same question stated without using satire, sarcasm, or humor. Hopefully you will understand better this way.
How can you justify saying that smoking marijuana has no ill effects and for proof you say that you have been around people who some marijuana and they have had no ill effects.
But you reverse your position and say you are against the tobacco industries when for "proof" we can say many have been around people who some marijuana and they have had no ill effects.
It seems illogical since both have detrimental effects.
How lovely. This is the second thread of Rip's you've ******** all over and sidetracked by calling me a liar and challenging my sig.
(snip)
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.[/quote]
Sigh, again you misunderstand.
1. I don't know rip
2. I didn't sidetrack the thread. In actuality by using the obviously false and hateful signature you appear to be attempting to sidetrack threads.
3. I suggest that you do the same as I do. When you see a false statement being made you attempt to get the person to correct their statement.
4. resorting to threats? Why?
Edited to add the following.
However, since speaking the truth gets you so very upset with me I will discontinue trying to educate you on your error. Up until know I had assumed you actually believed what you were saying. Also, I will discontinue posting in this thread to avoid "side tracking" it.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
belief in an imaginary friend is mental illness. that and some believe it gives them the right ot act like a sociopath as long as it's in the name of wealth, because it's all going to be absolved by their imaginary friend.
I think alcohol is a gateway drug. Alcohol led to weed led to other things. its all illegal for me anyways.
/agree 80%
it's also a gate-way drug because of it's potentiation effects when used in combination with other drugs and long-term users who become used to the effects look for other ways to get high.
all for medical use of THC.
the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> structure tags where left out, sorry, didn't know it was xhtml.
reasonable.
he's just trying to eat you for being a newbie. thanks for the thoughtfull discourse.
wish prohibition on hard alchohol worked, we'd have many fewer deaths and dead-wives.
Here's what the Principal investigator, Dr. John Benson, of the Institute of Medicine really had to say: "We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses."
Surprise, surprise, the DEA lied about marijuana. Who would have thunk it. Here's some quotes from the actual IOM report:
"The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." [p. 3]
"Basic biology indicates a role for cannabinoids in pain and control of movement, which is consistent with a possible therapeutic role in these areas. The evidence is relatively strong for the treatment of pain and, intriguing although less well established, for movement disorders." [p. 70]
"For patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing chemotherapy and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea, and appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication. The data are weaker for muscle spasticity but moderately promising." [p. 177]
"Cannabinoids reduce reactivity to acute painful stimuli in laboratory animals. ... Cannabinoids were comparable with opiates in potency and efficacy in these experiments." [p. 54]
"The most encouraging clinical data on the effects of cannabinoids on chronic pain are from three studies of cancer pain." [p. 142]
"In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect." [p. 145]
Yes there are more effective drugs for glaucoma, but patients should still have the option of using marijuana if it works.
Once again the DEA is owned by their own source, the IOM:
"There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use. ... More definitive evidence that habitual marijuana smoking leads or does not lead to respiratory cancer awaits the results of well-designed case control epidemiological studies." [p. 119]
"The short-term immunosuppressive effects are not well established; if they exist at all, they are probably not great enough to preclude a legitimate medical use. The acute side effects of marijuana use are within the risks tolerated for many medications." [p. 126]
"It appears that marijuana use is associated with intermittent disturbances in T and B cell function, but the magnitude is small and other measures are often normal." [p. 112]
Once again from the IOM:
"[T]here will likely always be a subpopulation of patients who do not respond well to other medications. The combination of cannabinoid drug effects (anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and pain relief) suggests that cannabinoids would be moderately well suited for certain conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting." [Pp. 3, 4]
"The critical issue is not whether marijuana or cannabinoid drugs might be superior to the new drugs, but whether some group of patients might obtain added or better relief from marijuana or cannabinoid drugs." [p. 153]
"The profile of cannabinoid drug effects suggests that they are promising for treating wasting syndrome in AIDS patients. Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana. Although some medications are more effective than marijuana for these problems, they are not equally effective in all patients." [p. 159]
Sure there are probably better drugs in a lot of circumstances, but can you grow these cancer treatment drugs in your backyard for free? I can only imagine the list of negative side effects from these 'superior' drugs.
"The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease; The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies."
Because marijuana is schedule I researchers must petition the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for access to it's govt grown marijauana. For some reason NIDA has a reputation of turning down research grant applications designed to show marijauana's potential medical benefits, while at the same time allowing research into marijuana's negative effects. Surprised?
Essentially this is the DEA admitting that the only thing harmful about marijuana is the smoke. Thats what vaporizers are for, which a large % of medical users prefer to use. They also just admitted that THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana is SAFE and DOES have medicinal use. Heres what the IOM had to say about marinol:
" The onset of action is slow; peak plasma concentrations are not attained until two to four hours after dosing. In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed. ... Variation in individual responses is highest for oral THC and bioavailability is lowest." [p. 203]
"It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing." [Pp. 205, 206]
It doesn't matter. If the study was truly designed to be non-biased the results will be positive like every other study and the DEA will just ignore it or try and manipulate it's findings like they did with the IOM report.
This last bit is all the DEA really cares about. They have a vested interest in keeping marijuana schedule I. This is all political, the DEA will never admit what we all know already. They won't let sick people or the truth get in the way of their precious failing war on marijuana. The real campaign behind medical marijuana is TO HELP PEOPLE. Do you really believe allowing marijuana to be available BY PRESCRIPTION is going to result in the complete LEGALIZATION OF ALL DRUGS?
Looking to the DEA for reliable and honest information about marijuana is like asking the KKK for a lesson on black history.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter