[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Increased heart rate, loss of short term memory temporarily, brain function decrease temporarily are all side effects.

But those are present in alcohol too.

Don't even bother Collin..he's one of them.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by infinitekid2002

Don't even bother Collin..he's one of them.

I know, but outlining it for people willing to listen can be beneficial.

You don't have to prefer it, but educate yourself before you state an opinion ( not directed at you).

MJ smokers need to worry about productivity and procrastination more than health issues.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

MJ smokers need to worry about productivity and procrastination more than health issues.

Yeah I definitely won't argue against the notion that it makes you lazy and temporarily stupid as fuck.

But sometimes it's nice to hit the switch and turn my brain off. I've known a lot of people who just didn't understand moderation though. Those are the people who end up fucking themselves over because of their use.

[youngnastyman]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Yeah I definitely won't argue against the notion that it makes you lazy and temporarily stupid as fuck.

But sometimes it's nice to hit the switch and turn my brain off. I've known a lot of people who just didn't understand moderation though. Those are the people who end up fucking themselves over because of their use.

hey hey hey be nice

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by youngnastyman

hey hey hey be nice

I definitely had problems with moderation in college. Balls to the wall with everything. Partying, studying, sports, smoking, etc.... I have no idea how I lived through it, probably because of my staunch refusal to even try any of the harder drugs. I learned a lot the hard way but I'd never trade that college experience back. It was worth it.

Don't feel bad. You made a mistake, albeit a relatively decent sized one. Feel bad if you don't learn from it.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Yeah I definitely won't argue against the notion that it makes you lazy and temporarily stupid as fuck.

But sometimes it's nice to hit the switch and turn my brain off. I've known a lot of people who just didn't understand moderation though. Those are the people who end up fucking themselves over because of their use.

That's a maturity issue. Marijuana is not addicting and this is coming from a quarter a week( that's being moderate) guy, it's just a choice. I've chose to quit, and chose to start back.

It's age and maturity, not the drug.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

That's a maturity issue. Marijuana is not addicting and this is coming from a quarter a week( that's being moderate) guy, it's just a choice. I've chose to quit, and chose to start back.

It's age and maturity, not the drug.

Personality as well.

People can become psychologically addicted to it if they have an addictive personality, but those people can get addicted to anything. Hell, chocolate is more physically addictive than MJ. AND it makes you fat. Try outlawing that shit.

[Comet]

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Personality as well.

People can become psychologically addicted to it if they have an addictive personality, but those people can get addicted to anything. Hell, chocolate is more physically addictive than MJ. AND it makes you fat. Try outlawing that shit.

yup
as if people aren't addicted to alcohol?

[ideliver]

Plain and simple...there is no compelling reason to criminalize the use of ANY drug....and if you legitimize the production and distribution of drugs...then the criminal element goes away...

Prescription narcotics are abused and OD's are a problem...but usually when the products are obained illegally...

legalize, tax and regulate...the majority of problems will go away...and since the jails will be empty, we could actually have some money for drug treatment...

[Templar]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Marijuana has been proven to slightly reduce cancer in many instances. It also helps with nausea, and appetite but that's common knowledge.

There has been no proof that MJ causes cancer at all. It's a carcinogen but not until it is inhaled, but tent haven't found proof of it causing it.

There is no legit reason to outlaw it, and I can disprove any argument with facts. It's just getting ignorant people to read about it is the hard part.

Um, what?

Do you know what a carcinogen is?

I know what your main point is and I'm not arguing against that (that it shouldn't be outlawed), but saying that smoking it doesn't have any negative side effects is wrong.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by Templar

Um, what?

Do you know what a carcinogen is?

I know what your main point is and I'm not arguing against that (that it shouldn't be outlawed), but saying that smoking it doesn't have any negative side effects is wrong.

Marijuana is not a known carcinogen until it's smoked, like tobacco. However, a study was done and showed no evidence of cannabis smokers having an increase in probability in getting cancer.

Studies have shown that as much as 61% less chance at getting some cancers when smoking. They also put cannabinoids in cells and noticed an anti-cancerous effect.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Marijuana is not a known carcinogen until it's smoked, like tobacco. However, a study was done and showed no evidence of cannabis smokers having an increase in probability in getting cancer.

Studies have shown that as much as 61% less chance at getting some cancers when smoking. They also put cannabinoids in cells and noticed an anti-cancerous effect.

So there's no increased probability of getting cancer compared to what, people who smoke tobacco? That I can definitely believe, no argument there.

But compared to people who don't smoke at all? I can't believe that the chance of getting cancer is lower or reduced by smoking weed as opposed to not smoking anything at all. It just doesn't make sense to me, how inhaling a known carcinogen and having the damage to your cells from the smoke and tar (both of which burning MJ produces) can actually improve your health and reduce your risk of cancer. I'd like to see the study that was done to support this claim, because it just seems pretty far-fetched to me.

As far as the cannabinoids being placed into cells, that I can believe as well, because the burning effect and the hydrocarbons that are formed by burning it isn't present when injecting the cannabinoids into cells.

Not trying to troll or be a dick, I'm genuinely interested.

[CollinsE90]

Here's one link, im on my phone so be patient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052501729.html

[ideliver]

From uptodate.com....a paid medical subscription resource...very good quality medical information that I use everyday

"Cancer — Molecular, cellular, and histopathological evidence all indicate that marijuana smoking may cause cancer [35,36]. However, a 2005 review of epidemiologic studies concluded that sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate the effect of marijuana on cancer [35]. Many methodologic problems of the existing studies, such as inadequate sample sizes and not accounting for important confounding factors, especially cigarette smoking, limit the ability to detect an association that probably exists.

There is evidence that cannabis smoking is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. (See "Cigarette smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer", section on 'Marijuana'.)

A pooled analysis of five case control studies did not find an association between marijuana use and cancer of the head and neck [37]. (See "Epidemiology and risk factors for head and neck cancer", section on 'Smoking'.)

A case control study found that patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder were significantly more likely to be habitual marijuana users, compared to the controls without transitional cell carcinoma (89 versus 69 percent) [38]. However, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear, especially in light of the fact that tobacco use was a potential confounding variable. (See "Epidemiology and etiology of urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma of the bladder".)"

and

Marijuana — The carcinogenicity of marijuana smoking is less studied than that of tobacco smoking. Several reports have documented histologic and molecular changes in the bronchial epithelium of marijuana smokers that are similar to the metaplastic premalignant alterations that are seen among tobacco smokers [43-45]. However, an association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer has been difficult to prove because studies were limited by selection bias, small sample size, and failure to adjust for tobacco smoking [45,46]. In addition, the duration from the onset of marijuana smoking to outcome (ie, lung cancer) measurement may have been insufficient for lung cancer to develop because young participants were enrolled in most studies. (See "Pulmonary complications of cocaine abuse".)

Users of these drugs are probably at increased risk for lung cancer, although the magnitude of risk has not been well quantified [47,48]. The absolute risk of lung cancer that a given individual accrues likely relates to the magnitude and duration of drug use, the amount of adulterants coingested, and whether exposure to concomitant carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke) is present. In a case-control study, the risk of lung cancer increased 8 percent for each joint-year of marijuana smoking after adjusting for cigarette smoking [49]. In comparison, the risk of lung cancer increased 7 percent for each pack-year of cigarette smoking after adjusting for marijuana smoking.

[Greenkirby21]

while I don't smoke, do drugs, or even drink, I think they should all be legal as long as it is done at home and in privacy. If people want to fuck up their lives then let them. However, once it is out in the public (like drunk driving) then they should be punished with the full force of the law as they are putting others lives in dangers.

[CollinsE90]

Another one, both newer than the above info.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm

[The1]

Originally Posted by Greenkirby21

while I don't smoke, do drugs, or even drink, I think they should all be legal as long as it is done at home and in privacy. If people want to fuck up their lives then let them. However, once it is out in the public (like drunk driving) then they should be punished with the full force of the law as they are putting others lives in dangers.

exact same story here. I'm 30, never been drunk, just don't care to, don't find it appealing. I have about 10-15 drinks per year just when I feel like having one on the odd occasion. I used to smoke pot when I was a teen, and found no real point to it or enjoyment.

So to me, I don't really care what people do with their money, as long as they aren't being a menace to society, or causing damage to themselves and others.

Stay off the roads. Know your limits. And last but not least, respect what different substances can do to you. I'm 6'4 and 200lbs, and I know 2 beers don't affect me (when ingested normally as opposed to doing funnels and shit like that) I still would have a glass of water and wait a little longer before getting in my car.

I have friends who get drunk and high around me from time to time, and I really don't care because I know they respect the substances and wouldn't do anything stupid. They also know that I will give them a hand if it's needed.

[Templar]

They are both from the same study done in 2006. Over half of the people in the study already had some sort of cancer.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Neither article shows the correlation, it basically says "We found a bunch of people, some have cancer and some don't, and asked them about their history. We found no relation to the MJ smoking and cancer incidence."

But then, the second article says that 80% of the people in theis study who had cancer not only smoked MJ, but also smoked tobacco. I'm not arguing that smoking MJ alone has the same risks as smoking tobacco, so I don't see how this study applies to my argument. It clearly shows that smoking tobacco carries a high risk of cancer, and I agree.

I don't think this is possible, but I'd like to see if there is a study out there that compares the risk of cancer between someone who doesn't smoke at all, and someone who smokes MJ exclusively (and no tobacco at all). I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that the non-smoker is at a much lower risk of cancer...

[The1]

Originally Posted by Templar

They are both from the same study done in 2006. Over half of the people in the study already had some sort of cancer.



I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Neither article shows the correlation, it basically says "We found a bunch of people, some have cancer and some don't, and asked them about their history. We found no relation to the MJ smoking and cancer incidence."

But then, the second article says that 80% of the people in theis study who had cancer not only smoked MJ, but also smoked tobacco. I'm not arguing that smoking MJ alone has the same risks as smoking tobacco, so I don't see how this study applies to my argument. It clearly shows that smoking tobacco carries a high risk of cancer, and I agree.

I don't think this is possible, but I'd like to see if there is a study out there that compares the risk of cancer between someone who doesn't smoke at all, and someone who smokes MJ exclusively (and no tobacco at all). I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that the non-smoker is at a much lower risk of cancer...

I think that it's more along the lines of, people with a more open mind about things such as MJ tend to be smokers. So really no relation should be found other then a likely higher population of tobacco users will smoke MJ then a non tobacco smoking population.

This is the sort of stuff that makes tests inconclusive. Even if I did smoke MJ now and since I'm not a tobacco smoker, the results could still be thrown out because I smoked cigars and pipe tobacco for about 10 years before I became allergic. So, if I were an avid MJ user now (which I'm not allergic too) The test would be useless because any damage I may have could have been cause by my 10 years of tobacco use.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by The1

I think that it's more along the lines of, people with a more open mind about things such as MJ tend to be smokers. So really no relation should be found other then a likely higher population of tobacco users will smoke MJ then a non tobacco smoking population.

This is the sort of stuff that makes tests inconclusive. Even if I did smoke MJ now and since I'm not a tobacco smoker, the results could still be thrown out because I smoked cigars and pipe tobacco for about 10 years before I became allergic. So, if I were an avid MJ user now (which I'm not allergic too) The test would be useless because any damage I may have could have been cause by my 10 years of tobacco use.

Agreed.

Like I said I don't have a problem with it at all. I don't personally do it, just not my cup of tea (and I'm in the Army so I couldn't even if I wanted to, lol).

But I can't honestly believe that I am at a disadvantage with my health because I don't smoke weed, and that smoking weed is actually healthier for you than not smoking it at all, which is what I am starting to believe the direction of this thread is heading...

[CollinsE90]

What about people who vape or use edibles?

[Maestro]

not to drag this subject up and I think someone said lock your stuff in the glove box, to that point and to show how complicated this subject is here is a recent court case

http://thenewspaper.com/news/37/3717.asp