Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 244
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Why is cannabis illegal and alcohol legal?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    you idiot
    I'm afraid you have stepped over the line, my friend. A 3 day suspension is headed your way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    What happened to this thread?

    This is one of the pitfuls if you pursue a career in chemistry and become a little too keen on synthesised opium.
    John Galt and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    question for you,
    This is what happens when someone hijacks a thread and begins trolling. What started out as an interesting topic got hijacked by someone who then used it as a podium for his own personal opinions and agenda while trying to state that they were fact. Unfortunately it happens alot with small minded people. Back to the subject at hand.

    Part of the reason that Cannabis has remained illegal for such a long period of time could have something to do with political pressure from the pharmaceutical companies. Because Cannabis is a natural herb or plant the Major companies cannot patent it. Pressure could also come from major alchohol producers as they want to be the only game in town for that sort of recreation. At the moment I am at work and cant look up sources but I will get back to you if I can find anything to support my opinion.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Alcohol and medical companies have more money than potato chip companies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The apparent reason in a democratically elected government, is that legalization of marijuana is not politically popular. If it were politically popular, I think we would see lots of candidates running for office with the promise of legalizing marijuana use. I don't see that happen very often.

    If you agree that it is not politically popular, then the conspiracy theory involving drug companies or other vested interest would have to involve some sort of well funded anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. Can anyone identify such a propaganda campaign?
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4
    I skipped most of what everyone was saying but you would have to ask a politician why they have their reasons for what they do.. honestly Alcohol is terrible for the body and mind. Marijuana is not bad for you unless you do it 24/7 for years and years.

    Benefits to marijuana and you can look this up aswell, here is a small list

    Anti inflammatory
    Can help insomnia
    Can help annorexia
    Cannot give you cancer from smoking it
    Is not addictive
    Can help mentally hurt people think clearer
    Has cancer fighting cells

    Cons:

    "May" kill brain cells?

    Think about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by asisorfree View Post
    Cannot give you cancer from smoking it. ... Has cancer fighting cells.
    As you say, you skipped many of the posts. Perhaps you should read some of them as you are clearly suffering from the same misapprehension as a previous poster.

    apart from which, "has cancer fighting cells" makes no sense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    I have seen this stuff about anti-cancer before and it is very poor information. The reason most cancer patients who utilize cannabis as part of their treatment do so is because it helps with pain, nausea and appetite. The drugs used to combat cancer can leave one so sick that they are unable to eat. Using cannabis can help suppress feelings of nausea and improve appetite allowing the patient tyo eat and gain important nutrients. I am a huge proponent of medicinal marijuana use however I am not a fan of simple recreational use. Cannabis is also useful in the treatment of chronic pain. Cannabis does have a mild analgesic affect that can help many types of pain such as fibromyalgia. I personally suffer from severe migraines and the use of cannabis is very beneficial in maintaining my ability to work and socialize without pain. There are many ways to consume the drug as well, one does not have to smoke it. You can make it into a butter, you can vaporize it etc.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you agree that it is not politically popular, then the conspiracy theory involving drug companies or other vested interest would have to involve some sort of well funded anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. Can anyone identify such a propaganda campaign?
    With the half a dozen legalize pot bills coming up, the info on who's funding the campaigns against these measures is probably available. I know for one of them, prop 19 in California, most of the money against came from various police organizations--not drug companies.

    Also to be noted with some of these bills is most voters are influenced by 4 generations of info, and misinformation about pot that go all the way back to grand and great grand parents when the process of state's deciding was short circuited by the company political influence on federal laws combined with faux science like "reefer madness." Most also don't know the huge number of prisoners being held for victimless crimes associated with pot. This issue like many things has tremendous inertia from generations of less than objective decision making. I think another pot bill is going to be on the WA state ballet this November but I've hardly seen any political advertising about it one way or the other.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    On cancer.

    Let me repeat myself.

    All smoke, and I repeat all, is carcinogenic.
    If you inhale smoke, whether from tobacco, wood fires, coal fires, incense, or cannabis, you are increasing your risk of lung cancer.

    Even smoke on food increases cancer risk. Eating excessive amounts of smoked meats substantially increases your risk of lip, tongue or throat cancer.

    The only thing about cannabis which drops the lung cancer risk a bit is the simple fact that most cannabis smokers inhale relatively small amounts, so their increased risk may be more along the lines of the increased risk from passive tobacco smoking - such as if you work in a smoky tavern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Most of the reason it was made illegal had absolutely nothing with its potential harm or effects of people. The synthetic fiber industry (e.g. DuPont) and petroluleum industries pushed the idea on politicians during the 1930s to protect their own industries and were successful in removing both one of the most useful natural fibers as well as its use for recreational purposes.
    There is truth here in this quote. Check the first and second world war, the British Navy, and the reason why canabis is called Indian Hemp.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    I have seen this stuff about anti-cancer before and it is very poor information. The reason most cancer patients who utilize cannabis as part of their treatment do so is because it helps with pain, nausea and appetite. The drugs used to combat cancer can leave one so sick that they are unable to eat. Using cannabis can help suppress feelings of nausea and improve appetite allowing the patient tyo eat and gain important nutrients. I am a huge proponent of medicinal marijuana use however I am not a fan of simple recreational use. Cannabis is also useful in the treatment of chronic pain. Cannabis does have a mild analgesic affect that can help many types of pain such as fibromyalgia. I personally suffer from severe migraines and the use of cannabis is very beneficial in maintaining my ability to work and socialize without pain. There are many ways to consume the drug as well, one does not have to smoke it. You can make it into a butter, you can vaporize it etc.
    A very powerful way of using marijuana is to bathe in it. I do not think it is yet known the entire use of Marijuana. There are so many alements that it releves or cure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What happened to this thread?

    This is one of the pitfuls if you pursue a career in chemistry and become a little too keen on synthesised opium.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    On cancer.

    Let me repeat myself.

    All smoke, and I repeat all, is carcinogenic.
    If you inhale smoke, whether from tobacco, wood fires, coal fires, incense, or cannabis, you are increasing your risk of lung cancer.

    Even smoke on food increases cancer risk. Eating excessive amounts of smoked meats substantially increases your risk of lip, tongue or throat cancer.

    The only thing about cannabis which drops the lung cancer risk a bit is the simple fact that most cannabis smokers inhale relatively small amounts, so their increased risk may be more along the lines of the increased risk from passive tobacco smoking - such as if you work in a smoky tavern.
    Proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Proof?
    I am sure you are aware that 'proof' is a concept not recognised by good science. However, I have no problem being asked to supply evidence.

    Yes, all smoke is carcinogenic.
    Re: Is all smoke carcinogenic ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Proof?
    I am sure you are aware that 'proof' is a concept not recognised by good science. However, I have no problem being asked to supply evidence.

    Yes, all smoke is carcinogenic.
    Re: Is all smoke carcinogenic ?
    Makes sense, good article, aside from some inaccuracies. I only asked for proof to be an ass. Doing what others do, a clever way of integrating to our modern society
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    question for you,
    This is what happens when someone hijacks a thread and begins trolling. What started out as an interesting topic got hijacked by someone who then used it as a podium for his own personal opinions and agenda while trying to state that they were fact. Unfortunately it happens alot with small minded people. Back to the subject at hand.

    Part of the reason that Cannabis has remained illegal for such a long period of time could have something to do with political pressure from the pharmaceutical companies. Because Cannabis is a natural herb or plant the Major companies cannot patent it. Pressure could also come from major alchohol producers as they want to be the only game in town for that sort of recreation. At the moment I am at work and cant look up sources but I will get back to you if I can find anything to support my opinion.
    Drug companies/suppliers are not the only ones. Growing Industrial Hemp, which cant get anyone high, is also illegal and is a schedule 1 drug in the US.
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 27th, 2012 at 01:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    A new study is out on cannabis smoking. It shows that teenage cannabis smokers suffer an 8 point drop in IQ.

    Findings of groundbreaking cannabis study released - Yahoo! New Zealand News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Too bad it doesnt link to the actual PrRvw paper.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Too bad it doesnt link to the actual PrRvw paper.
    That is because the study results are so recent. I do not think the full report has been published yet. I expect in about a month, the full report will be available.

    Here is another version of the media report, with a little more detail.

    Lasting IQ damage from teen dope use | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    But is the damage caused from general usage of the plant or is it because of the way they used it ie. smoked it? Also the first article linked to states "Heavy Marijuana Use". Exactly what is their definition of heavy use, an ounce a day? A quarter ounce? A single joint? THere is too much ambiguity in the posted article to draw any real conclusions we will have to wait untill the entirety of the study is published. the second paper from otago daily times just gave me an access denied page
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Too bad it doesnt link to the actual PrRvw paper.
    That is because the study results are so recent. I do not think the full report has been published yet. I expect in about a month, the full report will be available.

    Here is another version of the media report, with a little more detail.

    Lasting IQ damage from teen dope use | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
    Well Skeptic, I have read so much on this topic and I can tell you there is enough arguments to go around. I myself am a survivor with the use of marijuana from damage to my nerve system from surgery. There are no known deaths from the herb, no large side effects, no dosage problems no mental problems. The verdict is still out why it is illegal. We do have to be skeptish of these studies and what interest they serve.

    I will say this though that the use of anything requires knowledge. I do not think children up to a certain age should be exposed to any substance without the knowledge of someone responsible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    MF

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that smoking cannabis is harmful. However, that is not the same as a reason to make it illegal. Alcohol probably does more damage than cannabis, and making alcohol illegal would be utterly stupid, because there is no practical way of stopping its use.

    Cannabis, along with alcohol, tobacco, and ecstasy are drugs that should be legal, but regulated and taxed.
    dmwyant likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    MF

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that smoking cannabis is harmful. However, that is not the same as a reason to make it illegal. Alcohol probably does more damage than cannabis, and making alcohol illegal would be utterly stupid, because there is no practical way of stopping its use.

    Cannabis, along with alcohol, tobacco, and ecstasy are drugs that should be legal, but regulated and taxed.
    Most people in Jamaica do not smoke it but drink it as a tea. I also know for a fact that smoking anything is harmful for humans. The burnt carbon lodges in the tissues of the lungs and blocks oxygen to the system. However smooking allows the THC to get very fast to the blood stream and gives instant releif or high.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you agree that it is not politically popular, then the conspiracy theory involving drug companies or other vested interest would have to involve some sort of well funded anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. Can anyone identify such a propaganda campaign?
    With the half a dozen legalize pot bills coming up, the info on who's funding the campaigns against these measures is probably available. I know for one of them, prop 19 in California, most of the money against came from various police organizations--not drug companies.
    Usually we don't and can't know who is funding a political organization, can we? I guess if lots of police speak highly of the organization and openly say they're making donations, that would tell us.

    Otherwise, what's to stop a pharmaceutical company from starting a political action group called "Police officers against Drugs", and then funding it to fight marijuana? Is there any law requiring the name to be accurate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The apparent reason in a democratically elected government, is that legalization of marijuana is not politically popular. If it were politically popular, I think we would see lots of candidates running for office with the promise of legalizing marijuana use. I don't see that happen very often.

    If you agree that it is not politically popular, then the conspiracy theory involving drug companies or other vested interest would have to involve some sort of well funded anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. Can anyone identify such a propaganda campaign?

    I see the ideology being spread mostly by religions these days. I guess since they lost the prohibition campaign, so they have to sink in and fight all the more bitterly against marijuana. Never sparing any chance to tell other people how to live, right?
    question for you likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Do you believe adults have sovereignty over their own body?

    What legitimacy does the government have to prevent me from consuming a plant found growing naturally all over the world? Can I not make that decision for myself?

    In regards to health and social motivations for banning substances, take a look at the charts below:


    The Most Harmful Drug - The Daily Dish - The Atlantic
    6a00d83451c45669e20133f581b565970b-550wi.jpg

    BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Drug classification rethink urged
    dddd.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    god created whiskey to keep the Irish humble
    and she almost succeeded
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    We all know that alcohol does more harm to society than cannabis. Tobacco is worse still, in that it kills most of those who get addicted to it, through early mortality.

    The problem with trying to control alcohol and tobacco consumption is that such control is doomed to failure from the word 'go', since it is really, really easy to grow (or ferment) either of them at home. The same applies to marijuana, of course, making the war against this drug utterly stupid.

    Serious drugs like heroin and methamphetamine do less harm to society as a whole, but do more harm to the individuals who use those drugs, and to their families.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    billions and billions of dollars are thrown into the "drug wars" by "our" government
    crazy
    stupid
    political crap

    more cops more prisons
    more insanity and more stupidity
    and the arogant claim to rightousness by those who profit from this insanity.

    but then again
    I could be wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    I advocate peaceful civil disobedience.

    In a democracy, laws are supposed to represent the interests and beliefs of the people.

    In Australia, multiple surveys have showed public support for legalisation of cannabis at over 50%. Yet the government feels compelled to act on our behalf, like some kind of parent figure.

    There is a deeper issue in a trend of disempowering the general populace and prohibiting them from making their own educated decisions about how to live their lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I just watch a documentary called "Cocaine" in History Channel, and here's what I saw:

    Drug like cocaine bring harm to the whole South America and North America continent. The money from the cocaine supplies terrorist druglord in Peru, Columbia, and in Mexico. They got soo much money from drug sales they can even afford a submarine and alot of guns.

    In North America, you see that drug know NOT your wallet. You'll do anything to get the drug (ie: men will even disguise as women for prostitution). Its not even a rational item to be taxed.

    In the rest of the place you see armed conflict between police and gang, and you see nation not having enough resources to care for their people, and innocent people become drug trafficker for the money, and coca became too important to local people (for making local food for example) and its not even possible for government to change anything (ie: in Peru its like fighting over coca farm; where government try to remove Communist militia from taking control).

    I think all this drug (ie: cannabis, cocaine, esctasy, ect) will just destroy our mind. What's the point in having it. I think if you are sick you can still get morphine or vicodine from hospital?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    if the drug were not illegal
    the crime based gangs and violence would fall
    the price would decline
    both here and there
    ....
    so is it the coca plant and cocain. or it it a silly result of an ill conceived legislative act by the ignorant and corrupt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I do not think there is disagreement here. I suspect most on this thread would agree.

    My view is that drugs which are either relatively harmless, like ecstasy, and those drugs which are impossible to control, like alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, should be treated the same way. Made legal, but regulated and taxed. They would be available to adults from retail outlets with no restrictions. Relevant laws might govern such things as driving under the influence, or going to work when impeded by drug influence, but recreational use that harms no one else should be permitted without hindrance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    if the drug were not illegal
    the crime based gangs and violence would fall
    the price would decline
    both here and there
    ....
    so is it the coca plant and cocain. or it it a silly result of an ill conceived legislative act by the ignorant and corrupt?
    No it cannot. If you legalize those drug then you'll become a producer and you will still need to fight with druglord, terrorist and extremist for its control. -This drug is too crazy to be commercialized because it can destroy people's integrity more than what greed and money can.

    You can even pay people with drug for example, you can even make them slaved to you (ie: sex slave), and you can even use it to pay for terrorist activity. It really hard to understand why (for me even) that terrorist organization use drug as currency and its always linked to crime. This thing is just plain bad...

    Lets take the "potato chip" example. Can a terrorist organization relly on potato chip for making crime? -I don't know the answer... but I hope nobody do crime with potato chip's money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I do not think there is disagreement here. I suspect most on this thread would agree.

    My view is that drugs which are either relatively harmless, like ecstasy, and those drugs which are impossible to control, like alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, should be treated the same way. Made legal, but regulated and taxed. They would be available to adults from retail outlets with no restrictions. Relevant laws might govern such things as driving under the influence, or going to work when impeded by drug influence, but recreational use that harms no one else should be permitted without hindrance.
    I agree.

    But what about the legality of cultivating native plants and fungi (such as cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms) on your own property?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I think all this drug (ie: cannabis, cocaine, esctasy, ect) will just destroy our mind. What's the point in having it. I think if you are sick you can still get morphine or vicodine from hospital?
    I think this a simplistic and one-sided view. Do you have any evidence to support this?

    By this logic, I could make the claim that TV will just destroy our mind. What's the point in having it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    But what about the legality of cultivating native plants and fungi (such as cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms) on your own property?
    That is just an extension of the earlier principle.

    Mind you, governments sometimes get annoyed at people getting around taxes, and they may get shirty with you growing your own cannabis instead of paying tax on retail product. But who can predict governments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    if the drug were not illegal
    the crime based gangs and violence would fall
    the price would decline
    both here and there
    ....
    so is it the coca plant and cocain. or it it a silly result of an ill conceived legislative act by the ignorant and corrupt?

    Cocaine had been legal in the US for well over a 100 years and it never caused these types of problems until it became illegal.

    Thank goodness for caffeine huh? The drug of choice. ... Make caffeine illegal and the violence and black market it would create would make the cocaine industry look small and relatively calm and kind in comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I think all this drug (ie: cannabis, cocaine, esctasy, ect) will just destroy our mind. What's the point in having it. I think if you are sick you can still get morphine or vicodine from hospital?
    I think this a simplistic and one-sided view. Do you have any evidence to support this?

    By this logic, I could make the claim that TV will just destroy our mind. What's the point in having it?
    For example: people prostituting themselves to buy drugs? that's bad thing right?

    TV don't destroy our mind because we have documentary and news in TV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    That really does not answer the question though. you asserted that ALL "drugs" (no clarification as to what you mean by the term) destroy your mind.

    And as fro TV have you looked at this thread in health and medicine?? Brainrot... can your lifestyle affect your mental prowess that much?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    It's because large corporate pharma has bribed all your politicians that you elected so they can have a monopoly on first getting you sick and then providing the "solutions" Cant have healthy people and treating themselves now can we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It's because large corporate pharma has bribed all your politicians that you elected so they can have a monopoly on first getting you sick and then providing the "solutions" Cant have healthy people and treating themselves now can we?
    Ummmm, no. It is not. Do you have any evidence that shows otherwise?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    It's because large corporate pharma has bribed all your politicians that you elected so they can have a monopoly on first getting you sick and then providing the "solutions" Cant have healthy people and treating themselves now can we?
    Ummmm, no. It is not. Do you have any evidence that shows otherwise?
    Yes, review the lobbies organisations and review the rules that have been voted on being put forth in committing to prevent treatment using natural remedies. The industry wants a monopoly on the use of our god given plants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    How is that evidence that they have been purposely "first getting you sick"...
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    People have to be unhealthy first so that you can then make money on treating the symptoms rather than the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    I'm still waiting for the evidence that i requested. you have yet to show any that supports your massive conspiracy theory.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    See polio vaccine, see h1n1 vaccine, see grains being at the bottom of the food pyramid, see margarine, see rape seed oil, see osteoporosis treatment and resulting bone death, see the prescribing of hundreds of expensive drugs with side effect worse than the condition supposedly being treated.

    Create the problem then offer the solution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Hmmm so you are saying that Polio and H1N1 were created by man?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Hmmm so you are saying that Polio and H1N1 were created by man?
    Merck deliberately distributed Polio vaccine contaminated with SV40 during the years 1953 to 1963.


    "CDC studies of the 1918 influenza virus were begun in 2004 with the initiation of testing of viruses containing subsets of the eight genes of the 1918 virus. Previous articles describing the properties of such viruses were published before 2005. Reconstruction of the entire 1918 virus was begun in August 2005."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    The SV40 dates you should be quoting are 1955-1961, and, since SV40 was not even discovered/described until 1960, claiming purposeful contamination is a major stretch. Also, what is the point of the CDC quote?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I'm just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it's got to be in the Sabin's vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

    Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer-causing virus to Vaccine - YouTube

    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    There is so much disinformation in this thread it boggles my mind.

    Certain cannabinoids, active ingredients in cannabis, have been found in well documented research to kill cancer cells by facilitating the cells natural self destruction process, which is designed to destroy cells that have become genetically corrupted. There is an overwhelming preponderance of anecdotal testimonials supporting the justifiable belief that Cannabis has cured many types of incurable cancer, when properly administered. Cannabis also is very neuro-protective, and has been shown to protect nerve cells from nerve gas toxins, and other forms of damage. There are many other proven, well documented benefits of using cannabis judiciously.

    The reason that Cannabis effects the body is that the body makes endo-cannabinoids or cannabinoids to hook up with the receptor sites found in every system in the body. Everyone who says they have never been "high" is full of it, because their own body makes them slightly "high" frequently, almost constantly, if it didn't they would die. Cannabinoids are critical to human health and well being.

    Cannabinoid receptor sites regulate many critical functions in the body, primarily towards bringing balance into the systems. If you are dehydrated it will make you thirsty, if you are upset it will calm you down. The two main differences between the cannabinoids your body produces and the ones in cannabis is the time it takes for the endo cannabinoids to metabolize, or break down. and you can ingest way more cannabinoids than your body could produce under normal circumstance Endo cannabinoids break down quickly, in seconds to minutes, whereas the cannabinoids in cannabis take 2 to 6 hours to metabolize.

    Cannabis does not remain in active form in the body for more than a few hours, however the metabolites of cannabis based cannabinoids can remain in fat cells for many days. Metabolites are what is left over after a chemical breaks down. That is what drug tests look for because testing for active cannabinoids is expensive and we do not have good research on what level of cannabinoids in the blood might incapacitate a user. Many studies demonstrate improvements in motor skills under the influence, to the point that cannabis is considered by the Olympics to be a performance enhancing drug.

    Cannabis remains illegal because of the money and power that surround keeping it illegal. If cannabis became legal tomorrow the DEA would have to cut it's staff by 80%, police forces, judges, prosecutors, courts and prison systems would suddenly find that half of their justification for existing would vanish. Legaliztion would drop the price of good quality cannabis to pennies per ounce and the money laundering and underground market cannabis provides for would collapse, which would effect a lot of banks and criminal investments.

    On top of that the government would have to admit that it knew all along that cannabis was harmless, as virtually every well done government study has proven, to the consternation of those in power who have ordered and funded the studies. They would have to admit to having used military grade propaganda campaigns for decades on the public to keep people believing that cannabis is somehow so harmful that it must be kept away from everyone.

    Someone asked for links or citations proving cannabis is beneficial, my response is prove that it is harmful. Nixon appointed a commission to investigate the harms caused by cannabis and that commission came back after reviewing all available scientific research with the finding that cannabis is harmless and should be decriminalized. (Presidential Commission Shocks White House: Recommends Marijuana Should Be "Decriminalized") Which finding Nixon ignored. The Honorable Francis Young, a judge working with the DEA, ruled that cannabis is the safest known therapeutically active substance known. (Judge Francis Young rules marijuana is safe, 1988, DEA, USA) U.S. Department of Justice-appointed Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner ruled that the DEA should stop blocking research on cannabis. (ASA*:*DEA Administrative Law Judge Rules that Cannabis Research is "in the public interest" ) which ruling the DEA ignored.

    It took me 2 minutes to find the above references and I did not scratch the surface of the information that is available if one is not so blinded by propaganda based bad beliefs about cannabis that they cannot see the tsunami of evidence pouring in every day about the safety and medical efficacy of cannabis and the ridiculousness of tearing apart and effectively destroying families and destroying the lives of millions of people, by putting people in prison for cannabis manufacture, distribution and use and denying legitimate research into the benefits of cannabis in the US.

    Do your own research, (I am not your research assistant). Search Google for cannabis cancer cure and you will find a myriad of studies, mostly conducted outside the US because of the fanatical efforts of the DEA to block research, because they know that the findings will result in an 85% reduction in their budget. Fighting Marijuana is their bread and butter. Efforts to fight all other illicit drugs accounts for only about 10% of their annual budgets. They know it and have been using every dirty trick they can find to keep the public mindset against cannabis legalization and to keep the laws form changing. They have even openly engaged in the political persecution of legalization advocates here in the US and even in other countries.

    As far as I am concerned the DEA is nothing more than a legalized gang running a sophisticated protection scam on the US citizenry.
    dmwyant and vash31 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    "H1N1 were created by man?".... Also, what is the point of the CDC quote?

    "Reconstruction of the entire 1918 virus was begun in August 2005", what a coincidence!

    CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Q & A: Reconstruction of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Virus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    How the f.. is that admission of purposefully adding SV40 to Polio vaccine. Especially since very soon after it was described in 1960, it was removed from the vaccine. (PS why am I trusting a scare video as reliable?)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by ttown View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    "H1N1 were created by man?".... Also, what is the point of the CDC quote?
    "Reconstruction of the entire 1918 virus was begun in August 2005", what a coincidence!

    CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Q & A: Reconstruction of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Virus
    Correlation is NOT causation. Provide actual physical evidence that solidly links H1N1 to the 1918 reconstruction. Dont just make vague assertions and expect to be taken seriously
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Dr. Nice.

    Sorry to have to contradict you, but cannabis, when smoked is far more harmful than healthy. It is still less harmful than tobacco, but that is only because smokers smoke less of it.

    Cannabis smoke contains a number of carcinogens, and is a cause of lung cancer. It contains carbon monoxide which poisons hemoglobin. It lowers IQ in teenagers, and is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia.

    Cannabis use linked to IQ loss - NZ study - Story - NZ News - 3 News

    THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE

    Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    What about the fact that no experiment in rats has ever shown increase cancer due to being exposed to smoke? And what about the experiment which show mice exposed to smoke, developed protective mugus that preventing the mice from acquiring lung cancer when exposed to doses of radiation? Seems to me more likely smoking has become the scapegoat for all the cancer being caused by increased background radiation from nuclear testing and power plant releases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Please provide links to the actual published (peer reviewed) papers where these effects were documented.....
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    ttown

    Please post references to support claims.

    Cannabis smoke contains large amounts of carcinogens. In humans, there is an association between high rates of cannabis smoking, and lung cancer. This association is still higher if the people involved smoke tobacco as well.

    I suspect that tobacco is a worse contributor to lung cancer than cannabis, for the simple reason that tobacco smokers will smoke 20 cigarettes in the time a cannabis smoker consumes only 2 joints. However, the carcinogen levels in the smoke are higher for cannabis than for tobacco smoke. See my earlier reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Please provide links to the actual published (peer reviewed) papers where these effects were documented.....
    They wanted that to be true so they spent tons of money funding research trying to prove it to be but non of the experiments caused increased cancer in the test rats. What they found out instead was that the test rats that were subjected to heavy smoke from tobacco were protected from radiation.

    "The largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did"

    A report of a similar experiment with rats forced to smoke for 8 weeks appears. Here again, however, the researchers did not claim that the smoke did the animals any direct harm. They claimed, instead, that the smoke reduced the level of production of cytotoxin, a substance thought to be toxic to certain types of tumor cells.1985 in the Journal, Cancer Research

    Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-Inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982:
    "no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer", adding that "no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking."

    Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, MD:
    "It has been reported from some of our best medical journals that cancer and Alzheimers disease are 50 percent less frequent among smokers."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    TTown, we are STILL waiting for links to the papers you are claiming were published.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Actually it you making the claim it is harmful, so you need to provide the evidence. Maybe this will help you: Tobacco Documents Online
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    you have made several claims, those claims were challenged with a request to supply the papers where your claims were made. this is how science works. please supply links to the papers in question.

    The smoking/cancer links have been supplied by Skeptic already.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    you have made several claims, those claims were challenged with a request to supply the papers where your claims were made. this is how science works. please supply links to the papers in question.

    The smoking/cancer links have been supplied by Skeptic already.
    Here ya go
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    you realize macrophages are part of the cleaning system of the body and help it? The last line of the abstract says:
    These results suggest that cigarette smoke exposure may impair pulmonary macrophage-mediated tumor defense mechanisms.
    Eg smoking prevents/suppresses the macrophages normal function to help fight tumors...

    edit: here is the link to the paper Ttown posted Rat Lung Macrophage Tumor Cytotoxin Production: Impairment by Chronic in Vivo Cigarette Smoke Exposure
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Tobacco smoke on laboratory animals has been conclusively proved to cause lung cancer.

    Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

    I quote :

    "Among the multiple components of tobacco smoke, 20 carcinogens convincingly cause lung tumors in laboratory animals or humans"

    Cannabis smoke also probably causes lung cancer, though this has not been proven true yet for sure.
    Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

    I quote :

    "Cannabis smoke contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To Dr. Nice.

    Sorry to have to contradict you, but cannabis, when smoked is far more harmful than healthy. It is still less harmful than tobacco, but that is only because smokers smoke less of it.

    Cannabis smoke contains a number of carcinogens, and is a cause of lung cancer. It contains carbon monoxide which poisons hemoglobin. It lowers IQ in teenagers, and is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia.

    Cannabis use linked to IQ loss - NZ study - Story - NZ News - 3 News

    THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE

    Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer
    Clearly you did not read the the actual studies on which the articles you reference were based, nor did you look for anything that might refute what you already believe. Sadly this makes you are blind to the careful use of key words in those articles that tell an objective person that they are using innuendo instead of factual data to support their personal suppositions.

    Marijuana use has been proven irrefutably to not cause any kind of cancer. That claim is so beyond the pale as to be laughable. I defy you to produce a citsation to a single peer reviewed study proving cannabis causes cancer. Not an article written by someone with no medical background claiming it does, but an actual study. Don't waste your time looking though, cause it doesn't exist. If you understood how cannabis acts in the body you would understand why it is as harmless as it is.

    Think about it for a moment - you have surely heard the oft repeated adage that cannabis has never caused a single death, ever. That statement is well founded. If cannabis caused any kind of cancer, that would mean it caused deaths, and yet, over thousands of years of use not a single verifiable death has ever been caused by the medical impacts of cannabis use, even heavy, life long use.

    The NZ study does not prove a causal relationship between marijuana use in adolescence and lowering of IQ, it does not, as the article even states, take into account what kind of marijuana was used or if there was poly drug use at the time of cannabis use or if those studied routinely used alcohol during the 25 years between respondent ages, which is an known destroyer of brain cells and lowerer of IQ. Some excellent longitudinal studies have shown that no measurable loss of cognitive ability can be tied to cannabis use, even heavy, long term use, and that includes use by young children. (look for the one on the outcome of pregnant women using cannabis in I believe it was Jamaica. They found that contrary to popular belief children where cannabis was used regularly and where mothers administered cannabis to children for medical conditions the children did better in school, and were more well adjusted than the non using households.

    The page on the "health risks associate with marijuana use is riddled with statements like: "can damage the cells in the bronchial passages" They don't say DOES they say CAN wish is writer speak for I dont' have any evidence that proves it does, but I assert it is possible. The statement flies in the face with sound research that shows that HIV sufferers using cannabis did not experience any lowering of immune response, even from heavy cannabis use, and the more recent studies showing cannabis facilitates the natural self destruction process cells use when they become cancerous, which nicotine blocks.

    That inhaling smoke of any kind is going to irritate the lungs and bronchi is just common sense, though research shows that the difference in things like bronchial infections between users and non users over a persons lifetime is small, barely statistically provable. Add to that the fact that the main reason people smoke cannabis instead of vaporizing is that vaporizers are considered drug paraphernalia and are illegal in most states and those who design and manufacture them are persecuted by the DEA and other regulatory agencies, which has kept their production and use from becoming as widespread as it would be in a legalized environment. So all that horrible irritation is not caused by cannabis but rather is caused by ill conceived laws prohibiting the means for safer use of cannabis. Don't blame the plant for the harm done by the law.

    I personally believe that it is the use of less than ideal consumption methods and paraphernalia that leads to most if not all of the undesirable impact on the pulmonary system that might come from smoking cannabis. I am not going to deconstruct the entire article, but virtually every claim they are making about harm has been refuted by sound, peer reviewed studies.

    In about 2007 an excellent study found that it was in fact not all the carcinogenic compounds in smoke that caused lung cancer but that in fact it was specifically nicotine that was the causal agent. Nicotine blocks the cellular process of self destruction that is supposed to occur when a cell becomes corrupted (cancerous) and cannabinoids found in cannabis facilitates this process, undoing, to some degree, the harm caused by tobacco. Subsequent research has shown that cannabis not only does not cause cancer, of any kind, but that it kills many types of cancer cells, through the above mentioned process, and serves to strengthen the bodies natural defenses against cancer. So that article is completely bogus when compared to factual data.

    I am not your research assistant so please do your own research instead of trying to get me to wade through the thousands of study reports I read in the past ten years to pull up the ones that bolster what I am saying. I stopped saving the links to them long ago because the evidence became so clear to me that my government had been lying to me and everyone about cannabis for decades that there was no point in accumulating them. Search YouTube for Dr. Bob Melamede and listen to his presentations, search for Cannabis Therapeutics Conference and listen to the doctors and medical professionals discuss cannabis, and stop looking for reasons to continue to hold onto your propaganda based beliefs about cannabis.
    vash31 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    For pity's sake. It doesn't matter whether it's tobacco or cannabis or standing over a fire. All smoke is carcinogenic.

    Why do you think so many women (and other family members) in undeveloped and remote communities get lung cancer? Killer cookstoves: Indoor smoke deadly in poor countries; cleaner stoves elusive. — Environmental Health News
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    How relevant to the legality of cannabis is the discussion on its health aspects?

    I ask this question in light of the fact that much independent research has concluded that other legal drugs inflict much greater social and individual harm than cannabis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    For pity's sake. It doesn't matter whether it's tobacco or cannabis or standing over a fire. All smoke is carcinogenic.

    Why do you think so many women (and other family members) in undeveloped and remote communities get lung cancer? Killer cookstoves: Indoor smoke deadly in poor countries; cleaner stoves elusive. — Environmental Health News
    An interesting consideration is that particular compounds in cannabis exhibit protective mechanisms that may or may not mitigate the carcinogenic properties of cannabis smoke to some extent. Conversely, tobacco smoke has been found to block certain protective enzymes in the body.

    This systematic review, despite pointing out that there is strong biological plausability for a link to lung cancer, found that:

    Observational studies of subjects with marijuana exposure failed to demonstrate significant associations between marijuana smoking and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use.
    Personally though, I would recommend enjoying cannabis in moderation, and minimising harmful properties with methods like vaporising.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To DrNice

    Adelady is quite correct. All smoke is carcinogenic, including cannabis smoke.

    It is very easy to find references to the harm cannabis smoking does, since a lot of research has been done, showing this, and the results are published.

    A nice summary is
    Marijuana | DrugFacts | National Institute on Drug Abuse

    This shows harm to the lungs and to the respiratory system, even if cancer is not proven.

    I quote :

    "Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;6 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.7 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
    Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.8 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses."

    So why is lung cancer not proven?
    Probably partly the fact that cannabis smokers consume fewer joints than tobacco smokers consume cigarettes, and partly due to the fact that research is ongoing, and there is no yet sufficient data.

    As to the claim that marijuana has never killed anyone, I suspect that various traffic authorities would dispute that.
    Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash
    The results clearly indicate that marijuana has killed more than a few by contributing to fatal car accidents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    For pity's sake. It doesn't matter whether it's tobacco or cannabis or standing over a fire. All smoke is carcinogenic.

    Why do you think so many women (and other family members) in undeveloped and remote communities get lung cancer? Killer cookstoves: Indoor smoke deadly in poor countries; cleaner stoves elusive. — Environmental Health News
    That's an interesting belief. You can also find carcinogens in our food, water and air, and our own bodies make carcinogenic compounds during it's normal processes, so what is your point? I accept the claim that all smoke is irritating to pulmonary tissue and that most smoke contains compounds deemed to be carcinogenic, that does not mean smoke causes cancer.

    The ultimate reality is that we are are riddled with cancerous cells, all the time. The body has a several processes for eliminating those corrupted cells. Things like Apoptosis. So exposure to one kind of smoke or another is not going to give you a tumor unless the smoke contains compounds that disrupt the bodies natural defenses against tumor genesis, such as nicotine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Did you read the item I linked to?

    This is from the introductory paragraph.

    Almost 2 million deaths a year are caused by cooking smoke, which is linked to pneumonia in children, low birth weight babies and lung cancer.
    And from the World Health Organisation. WHO | Indoor air pollution and health

    Lung cancer

    Approximately 1.5% of annual lung cancer deaths are attributable to exposure to carcinogens form indoor air pollution. As with bronchitis, the risk for women is higher, due to their role in food preparation as well as their comparatively lower rates of smoking. Women exposed to indoor smoke thus have double the risk of lung cancer in comparison with those not exposed.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    DrNice

    Adelady is quite correct. Wood smoke contains carcinogens and causes cancer. Tobacco smoke contains carcinogens and causes cancer. Smoked foods contain carcinogens, which explains why nations like Iceland which consume lots of smoked foods have very high rates of lip, tongue, and throat cancer. Incense smoke contains carcinogens and causes lung cancer to (for example) Thai monks who breath a lot of that smoke.

    Cannabis smoke has been analysed, as my references show, and contains even more carcinogens than tobacco smoke does.

    All these pieces of data are the result of good research and are quite correct. Cannabis has not yet been proven to cause lung cancer, and I think the main reason is simply that cannabis smokers do not light up as many joints as tobacco smokers smoke cigarettes. However, that just means a lower risk - not no risk, and it is just a matter of time before the connection with lung cancer is made.

    In the mean time, there is plenty of other medical harms that have been shown to come from smoking cannabis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Regardless of all this, the current scientific evidence does not support the assertion that cannabis smoke causes lung cancer.

    Any attempt to explain that away is just conjecture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Vash

    Carcinogens cause cancer. If something contains large amounts of known carcinogens, as cannabis smoke does, the high probability is that it causes cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    So here is my favorite story that demonstrates the power of propaganda. And how cannabis has been kept illegal by our government -

    News flash - Recent studies have shown that a very powerful and deadly chemical, di hydrogen oxide, has been found in the drinking water systems of many major cities in the US. Di hydrogen oxide is the most powerful solvent known to man, and will eat away metals in a remarkably short time. Di hydrogen oxide has been found to be the cause of thousands of deaths all over the US each year, killing children, adults and even pets exposed to it. Yet our government is doing nothing to remove it from our drinking water supply. It is even found in frighteningly high concentrations in bottled water. This toxin has been known about by our government for decades, but is routinely ignored and in fact they are not even testing for it. It is fairly simple to remove this deadly toxin from the our drinking water, yet they not doing anything to do so. Please sign our petition to have Di hydrogen oxide removed from the drinking water supplies today!!

    Every claim made in the above statement is true and verifiable.


    Di hydrogen oxide = H2O or water . . . . . Deaths come from drowning and occasional overdoses. (By the way Cannabis causes fewer deaths each year than water. Or my new favorite comparison - Wall Photos | Facebook
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Vash

    Carcinogens cause cancer. If something contains large amounts of known carcinogens, as cannabis smoke does, the high probability is that it causes cancer.
    Cannabis also triggers protective mechanisms which are not yet fully understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    Cannabis also triggers protective mechanisms which are not yet fully understood.
    I am aware that this is a favourite theory of those people who love smoking cannabis. It is, however, unproven, and the level of evidence for it is problematic. It is much more likely that lung cancer from smoking cannabis is real, but less than with tobacco,and simply not yet demonstrated.

    It is also unnecessary to worry about whether cannabis causes lung cancer or not. There is very strong evidence of it causing a number of other harms to cannabis smokers, ranging from brain damage (IQ drop and increased likelihood of mental disease), suppressing immunity, racing the heart, and respiratory disease, as stated in my earlier references.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    Cannabis also triggers protective mechanisms which are not yet fully understood.
    I am aware that this is a favourite theory of those people who love smoking cannabis. It is, however, unproven, and the level of evidence for it is problematic. It is much more likely that lung cancer from smoking cannabis is real, but less than with tobacco,and simply not yet demonstrated.

    It is also unnecessary to worry about whether cannabis causes lung cancer or not. There is very strong evidence of it causing a number of other harms to cannabis smokers, ranging from brain damage (IQ drop and increased likelihood of mental disease), suppressing immunity, racing the heart, and respiratory disease, as stated in my earlier references.
    I was just pointing out that we should not jump into making closed claims like
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    it is just a matter of time before the connection with lung cancer is made.
    .

    Especially, when the current evidence does not support that and there may be mitigating components that are not fully understood.


    Anyway, moderation is always key.

    Personally, I try to judge how I physically feel. I smoke everyday but generally have a high level of health compared to most. I have also had physical examinations and bloodwork done periodically to keep an eye on overall health.

    If I start to develop a sore throat or cough I just stop for a couple of weeks. If I end up having induced harmful effects on myself than so be it. Everything comes with a cost, it would be naiive to think otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    DrNice. You may be surprised to learn that I'm pretty much on the same page as far as legalising cannabis goes.

    In fact, I'd add in a couple of other 'recreational' drugs as well. Most societies would be far better off if we were more realistic about balancing risks and benefits of various items. Tobacco and alcohol are already controlled, regulated and taxed by governments. Prohibiting such substances is an expensive and time-consuming and prison filling process for governments that choose this path - most of them.

    We'd be better advised to earn revenue and reduce enforcement costs by bringing cannabis and ecstasy (for starters) into the same fold as tobacco and alcohol. All of these substances cause harm. We just have to learn how we can better reduce and manage those harms rather than turning hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens into law-breakers. Even worse, that process invites disrespect for the law generally and brings ordinary citizens into close contact with real criminals.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Vash

    Carcinogens cause cancer. If something contains large amounts of known carcinogens, as cannabis smoke does, the high probability is that it causes cancer.
    The more you try to apply simple logic to an array of complex biochemical processes that create cancers that cause death, the farther you drift from any semblance of credibility. You are openly ignoring the repeatedly cited anti cancer effects of cannbinoids, and your are also ignoring all the scientific evidence accrued over thousands of years that cannabis use does not cause cancer. To put it very simply your belief that cannabis could cause cancer is baseless in light of the evidence. The development of tumors, which cause death, is not a simple process of exposure to a carcinogen. We all are riddled with cancerous cells, all the time. The corruption of individual cells, whether from exposure to outside chemical agents or any of hundreds of other causations rarely leads to tumors. Your own body produces more carcinogens than you would normally be exposed to in the environment, as waste products from normal cellular processes. So trying to convince people that cannabis causes cancer is like trying to convince people that water causes cancer. (Becasue water contains carcinogens.)

    Cannabis cures cancer. Ask the tens of thousands of those who have experienced it first hand. I have met dozens of people personally who will tell you straight out their cancer was cured by using cannabis. I have seen cannabis work medical miracles so many times that it seems common place to me now. Would it be better if vaporization were the common method of delivery to patients? Of course. But until cannabis is fully legalized I don't see vaporization replacing smoking as the primary means of ingestion of cannabis.

    Exposure to the sun causes more cancer than cannabis, so does stupidity. In this context ignorance is not having the facts. Stupidity is having the facts but choosing to ignore them. Which term do you think best fits your rigid adherence to the clear falsehood that cannabis causes cancer? You should be worried that your mind is going to give you cancer, if it hasn't already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    DrNice

    I have no illusions about my expertise on this topic, and I rely on those who are experts. Not on pro-cannabis web sites. The medical experts, like those in the NIH, have stated that cannabis contains substantial quantities of carcinogens and is likely to cause cancer. I go along with the expert opinion on this, rather than the inexpert opinion with all its bias, that comes with shaky web sites.

    The belief that cannabis cures cancer ranks with the belief that homeopathy cures cancer, and the level of evidence is no better. I will go along with that idea, when something like the American Cancer Association comes out and says it. Until then, it is just another crackpot idea.

    in fact, I just did a google on that idea. I checked the first 20 odd claims that cannabis cures cancer, and all of them were youtubes, blogs, "natural cure" sites, or other crackpot sites. When the claim is published in something reputable, I may take note.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    How do we know marijuana will be good for the society regardless of whatever its health effect to individual? I don't think any mind altering & addictive substance is good anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    How do we know marijuana will be good for the society regardless of whatever its health effect to individual? I don't think any mind altering & addictive substance is good anyway.
    TV is both potentially mind-altering and addictive.

    It is a slippery slope to start making decisions for people on behalf of what is best for society...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    DrNice

    I have no illusions about my expertise on this topic, and I rely on those who are experts. Not on pro-cannabis web sites. The medical experts, like those in the NIH, have stated that cannabis contains substantial quantities of carcinogens and is likely to cause cancer. I go along with the expert opinion on this, rather than the inexpert opinion with all its bias, that comes with shaky web sites.
    Likely is not directly substantiated or quantified. What is the likelihood? Its for this reason that I think those kinds of assertions by anyone, regardless of their recognised expertise, are fundamentally unscientific and not directly actionable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    For pity's sake. It doesn't matter whether it's tobacco or cannabis or standing over a fire. All smoke is carcinogenic.
    This really caught my eye. But as with anything in a scientific setting, a term always has some specific, non-intuitive meaning to it. So how exactly is "smoke" defined in this context?
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    TV is both potentially mind-altering and addictive.

    It is a slippery slope to start making decisions for people on behalf of what is best for society...
    TV is not mind-altering and addictive. Internet is far more mind-altering & addictive than TV (as comparison). So that's not a good point.

    In real world people use drug to fund terrorist and criminal act.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    So how exactly is "smoke" defined in this context?
    A fair question

    To my knowledge, the following have all been analysed and found to be rich in carcinogens.

    Wood smoke.
    Coal smoke.
    Tobacco smoke.
    Cannabis smoke.
    Incense smoke.
    Smoked meats.

    I cannot confirm that all smokes have been so tested. Dried animal dung, when burned, for example, should contain carcinogens in the smoke, since it involves burning vegetable matter, but I have not seen any scientific test to confirm this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    So how exactly is "smoke" defined in this context?
    Unless we move onto specific items, wiki will do the job quite well

    Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gasesemitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass. It is commonly an unwanted by-product of fires (including stoves, candles, oil lamps, and fireplaces), but may also be used for pest control (cf. fumigation), communication (smoke signals), defensive and offensive capabilities in the military (smoke-screen), cooking (smoked salmon), or smoking (tobacco, cannabis, etc.). Smoke is used in rituals, when incense, sage, or resin is burned to produce a smell for spiritual purposes. Smoke is sometimes used as a flavoring agent, and preservative for various foodstuffs. Smoke is also a component of internal combustion engine exhaust gas, particularly diesel exhaust.
    dmwyant likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by vash31 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    DrNice

    I have no illusions about my expertise on this topic, and I rely on those who are experts. Not on pro-cannabis web sites. The medical experts, like those in the NIH, have stated that cannabis contains substantial quantities of carcinogens and is likely to cause cancer. I go along with the expert opinion on this, rather than the inexpert opinion with all its bias, that comes with shaky web sites.
    Likely is not directly substantiated or quantified. What is the likelihood? Its for this reason that I think those kinds of assertions by anyone, regardless of their recognised expertise, are fundamentally unscientific and not directly actionable.
    I will not the exact same argument should then be applied the other direction. Since there have not been enough studies, assertions of effects prohibiting cancer etc should not be taken as credible either.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    TV is not mind-altering and addictive.
    Paper on TV addiction

    Twenty four of 237 adults surveyed agreed with the statement “I'm addicted to television.” They ranged from 18 to 72 years old. Respondents completed the TVAddiction Scale (Smith, 1986), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (Huba, Singer, Aneshensel, & Antrobus, 1982), and Television Use Styles Inventory (Schallow & Mcllwraith, 1986–87). Compared with the rest of the sample, self‐labelled “TVaddicts” were more neurotic, introverted, and easily bored. They more often used TV to distract them‐selvesfrom unpleasant thoughts, regulate moods, and fill time. Thegroups did not differ in positive fantasy.
    Paper on Psychological Effects of TV

    Two studies investigated the extent to which heavy television viewing affects consumers' perceptions of social reality and the cognitive processes that underlie these effects. Both studies found evidence that heavy viewers' beliefs about social reality are more consistent with the content of television programming than are those of light viewers. The use of a priming methodology provided support for the notion that television is a causal factor in the formation of these beliefs and that a failure to discount television‐based exemplars in forming these beliefs accounts for its influence. Implications of these results for a heuristic processing model of television effects are discussed.
    It would be nice if you would back up your assertions with some kind of evidence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I will not the exact same argument should then be applied the other direction. Since there have not been enough studies, assertions of effects prohibiting cancer etc should not be taken as credible either.
    I agree, which is why I specifically said that these protective mechanisms may have mitigating effects. I would not describe that as likely or unlikely, just a possibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by DrNice
    Which term do you think best fits your rigid adherence to the clear falsehood that cannabis causes cancer?
    Exactly how clear is that? Understand that you are at this point just some random guy on an internet forum making random claims and with an attitude to boot. Do you have any proper references for you claims?

    In the mean time, it is well known that all burnt organic materials contain carcinogens like: Benzo(a)pyrene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Why would cannabis be exempt from that?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Sitting on a rock to get high on weed might seem fun right now, momentarly. Einstein has given us a lot. He has helped his children understand the world. He got them closer to leaving the rock and that's why people will remember his name. When your children struggle with understanding the Universe, what are you going to give them to help them understand it? A joint? That's why no one will remember your name.

    If Einstein had smoken weed his entire life, where would we be now? He chose to sacrifice himself for the good of mankind, for life, and so shall you or there may be no tomorrow for any of us.
    Cannabis is not physically addictive and used in moderation may well be beneficial to opening the mind. Carl Sagan used cannabis and apparently it did not interfere with his performance. To the contrary, Sagan's mind explored the Universe. Nor did it seem to affect Franklin and Jefferson. One might make a case that their use of cannabis resulted in an "inspired" document, the Constitution.

    Strangely, many natural psychotropic drugs are still allowed for religious ceremonies. What's up with that?

    But alcoholic beverages have been used for centuries in many countries. Fermentation of sugars into alcohol is a natural process.

    The problem of addiction and adverse effects arises with synthetization (condensing) and "abuse".

    In regard to the coca plant growers in So.America, while it is illegal to grow coca in large quantities, local people are not prohibited from growing for their own use, which they have done for centuries as a mild stimulant when chewed.
    In Fiji, kava is used almost daily as a mild sedative (relaxant) when congregating.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using natural psychotropic substances as long as they are used in moderation and for recreational or meditative purposes.
    Last edited by Write4U; October 4th, 2012 at 02:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I am no expert, but from the discussion I get the impression that we are talking about extremes on both sides.

    Anything used in excess is harmful to the body. Drinking water is essential for good health, too much water will kill you.

    •Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.
    IMO, the determining qualifier in that statistic is "often used in combination with alcohol".

    Why not legalize the soft drugs and make laws that when the use of any drug results in harm to society, there will be stiff penalties. Make it legal for private use and keep it off the streets.
    Last edited by Write4U; October 4th, 2012 at 02:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Why not legalize the soft drugs and make laws that when the use of any drug results in harm to society, there will be stiff penalties.
    I agree with you. The good news is that we already have comprehensive laws in place to protect society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Cannabis is not physically addictive and used in moderation may well be beneficial to opening the mind.
    The evidence would appear to be to the contrary. Over use by teenagers results in a lowering of IQ.
    Cannabis more damaging to under-18s, study suggests | Science | The Guardian

    It also appears that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia.
    How cannabis can trigger schizophrenia | Mail Online

    You may think that mental illness is the same as opening your mind, but that would be a strange interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Cannabis is not physically addictive and used in moderation may well be beneficial to opening the mind.
    The evidence would appear to be to the contrary. Over use by teenagers results in a lowering of IQ.
    Cannabis more damaging to under-18s, study suggests | Science | The Guardian
    It also appears that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia.
    How cannabis can trigger schizophrenia | Mail Online

    You may think that mental illness is the same as opening your mind, but that would be a strange interpretation.
    a) I specifically addressed the problem of "abuse". You cite "over use". We are in agreement on that.
    b) As to the judicious use of psychotropics, I believe that overwhelming "anecdotal" testimony supports the notion that it opens the mind. Perhaps these experiences may be called "flights of fancy" but resulted in extraordinary creative endeavors, especially in the arts and sciences. I am not speaking of the exactness of scientific methods or the techniques used in arts, but in ways of setting aside learned knowledge and exploring new insights.
    I mentioned Carl Sagan, an eminently disciplined mind. He shared some of his experiences with close friends and told them that several of his insights came to him while under the influence. They recalled a story where Sagan was high and taking a shower. He had a inspired vision and wrote the idea on the shower walls with soap, fearing that he might forget if he became distracted by something else.

    I have never heard of schizophrenia being associated with canabis. It is true that the hightened senses may lead to paranoia (such as being caught), not schizophrenia. Cannabis, by virtue of its passive nature is eminently suited for social intercourse, similar to kava.
    And if it were not so scarce and costly, many people would use cannabis without smoking (and the resulting discomfort of coughing), but in edible form (such as brownies or cookies) which would save the lungs from damage.
    OTOH, synthesized cocaine is an aggressive drug which stimulates activity, unfortunately it often results in physical aggression, IOW schizophrenia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I find this article from the link flawed in many respects,
    The team examined the gene-controlling 'receptors' in the brain that respond to marijuana in 121 Japanese schizophrenics and a similar number of healthy men and women. 'These sites are where marijuana acts on the brain,' said Dr Ujike.

    The scientists found distinct abnormalities in DNA among the schizophrenics.
    Duhhh...........

    Malfunctions in the brain's marijuana-linked circuitry may make people vulnerable to schizophrenia, and smoking the drug might trigger the condition.
    Perhaps in schizophrenics. Note that nothing is said about "normal" people not vulnerable to schizophrenia.

    Another recent study suggested that using cannabis can damage everyday memory - such as putting names to faces or remembering to pick up car keys.
    Short term memory loss while under the influence, yes. But then one might see that as a good thing. It stands to reason that when distracted by an avalance of thoughts, one may forget where he placed his keys. On a busy day this happens in everyday life also, even when not under the influence.
    It does not affect long term memory.

    People who smoke the drug between five and 20 times a month have 10 per cent more of such memory problems than non-users. And those who smoke it more than 20 times a month have been found to be 20 per cent more deficient.
    Yep, short term memory loss is clearly related and in proportion to the number of times of usage. There is no evidence of destruction of long term regular memories. No one has ever claimed that cannabis use leads to dementia or alzheimers.
    Bill Maher is an avid advocate of cannabis and his mind and memory does not seem to be impaired in the least. Perhaps he writes his satirical inspirations down as did Sagan.

    Please do not misunderstand my position. From my limited knowledge I cannot claim any health benefits other than the well known reasons for medicinal cannabis. I am also not advocating the use of cannabis in general. I am primarily arguing for legalization, as the suppression of this drug has clearly had an adverse effect on society in a myriad of ways.
    Last edited by Write4U; October 4th, 2012 at 05:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. making alcohol based ink go further with alcohol
    By fairytale in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 24th, 2011, 08:21 PM
  2. The Effects of Cannabis on a Person's Mind
    By Sacklome in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2011, 02:41 PM
  3. Legalising cannabis: the economic argument
    By Prometheus in forum Politics
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: December 9th, 2010, 01:04 PM
  4. Legal Eagle
    By LegalEagle in forum Introductions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 07:33 AM
  5. Is This Legal Here?
    By georginho_juventusygr in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 24th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •