August 17th, 2012, 08:10 AM
Surely alcohol does more harm to the body? does more harm to society? is the cause for more violence? less consciouness?
Can it be logically justified?
Is it ethical?
What's the real reason for this seemingly absurd position held by the authorities?
I don't want to promote or demote either, just interested to here what people think about this 'reality'.
Alcohol is easily removed from the body, like, if you want to party on Sunday, by Monday you'll be fine to go to work. THC has a half life of a month, is fat soluble, it dissolves into your fatty tissue and stays there for years. It turns you into a crackhead man. You don't want to look like a walking corpse when you go to work, you know, like the ones you shoot in Left 4 Dead. Lol.
They had to legalize alcohol because they believe making alcohol illegal will create more problem & public expenses. They are worried that illegal alcohol will be used as income for mafia & druglord like illegal drugs does now, and illegal alcohol also don't need to pay taxes which *the tax* is currently used to pay for all the hospital & legal bill for all alcohol related incident (eg: car incident, crime, police patrol, insurance, ect). -So they are conflicted: they want to ban alcohol completely but people are already addicted to alcohol and will still buy alcohol from illegal sources, so if they made alcohol illegal: they had no way to control its sell & unable to collect taxes to pay back to the community, so its better to legalize alcohol but recommend high taxes & control where it is sold.
This is because they already tried to make alcohol illegal before but it create more mafia & organize crime. This happen during alcohol prohibition in 1920s (USA), where mafia sell alcohol like drugs.
-----
But they can't legalize drug because drug is highly addictive. When you gave high taxes to drug: it doesn't even dent/lower the buying power, people will still keep buying it until they are out of money (eg: drug junkies). So they don't believe legalizing such drug is beneficial, but they do believe legalizing (and taxing) mild drug like alcohol & tobacco can be beneficial (because they can impose regulation and tax will lower buying power).
Last edited by msafwan; August 17th, 2012 at 11:03 AM.
I never played 'left 4 dead' but i seen a movie called braindead, i will use this mental image instead. I know some alcoholics who look like the walking dead, except they shake more.Originally Posted by Oxycodone
So becuase drinkers can get up for work that makes it ok for them to poison themselves? Work is not the meaning of life is it?
The first bit was good but the last paragraph didn't make much sense to me.
The idea is to discourage people from buying addictive-drug by increasing the drug prices. The price can be controlled by imposing taxes to the manufacturer. Drug manufacturer will rise price thus reducing buying power. (this is indirect price control)
This make sense for any other product except addictive-drug. If you increase price too much: then suddenly it became cost effective to be manufactured illegally in small lab, but if you reduce price too much then the taxes is ineffective in reducing buying. If a person is hooked to the drug then he will buy at any price anyway.
How to reduce addictive-drug use using free-market concept ??? none, because buyer became irrational/impulsive. There's no way to make them stop except to impose ban. (this is direct regulation)
Last edited by msafwan; August 17th, 2012 at 02:08 PM.
i'm not sure what country your from or how things work there, so maybe thats why i'm not understanding you properly.The idea is to discourage people from buying addictive-drug by increasing the drug prices. The price can be controlled by imposing taxes to the manufacturer. Drug manufacturer will rise price thus reducing buying power. (this is indirect price control)
This make sense for any other product except addictive-drug. If you increase price too much: then suddenly it became cost effective to be manufactured illegally in small lab, but if you reduce price too much then the taxes is ineffective in reducing buying. If a person is hooked to the drug then he will buy at any price anyway.
How to reduce addictive-drug use using free-market concept ??? none, because buyer became irrational/impulsive. There's no way to make them stop except to impose ban. (this is direct regulation)
We'r talking about cannabis which isn't exactly an addictive drug, maybe some of the new varieties made by science are? It isn't usually produced in lab, neither are alcoholic drinks as far as im aware.
Alcohol is addictive but the government here doesn't encourage illegal production by forcing up prices. They do tax it ofcourse.
Yes it is, unfortunately. Everybody is working hard, from Monday to Friday, as if they knew something. What they know they can't phrase out, but they feel it. They feel the rush, the need to work their fingers to the bone. They feel that their time is running out.
To help you understand this, imagine waking up on an August morning at 8:00am, cold and chilling in a 16C temperature. Your room is dark, you open the binders and it's still nighttime, there is no sun. The sun is gone. By 4:00PM the apartment temperature drops below -30C. What do you think will happen? By the end of the week, everyone will be dead. Every single human being out there. Do you think it's right? Are you comfortable thinking about it? I am not, and most humans aren't comfortable with the idea. Of having to depend on so many things to live. You see, we are stuck on a rock called Earth that has been killing billions of humans in billion different ways since forever. We want off this rock...this...zoo, this prison. We want to be free and we can only achieve that through work and sacrifice. That, is the meaning of life. Yes we may have our outlets and fun but work is what matters most.
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.
I'm not saying about cannabis.
Maybe I'm in wrong thread.
I am rather dubious of these figures to be honest. What is your source for the "month half life" and for the assertion that it stays in fatty tissue?
Are you sure you didn't spend a lot of your formative years getting high? Working for a rich man is not the reason for my existence, I can go out into the forest, pick fruits and nuts, kill some meat if i want, gather fire wood, make warm clothes... yes that is work and that is necesary for survival. Working to make somebody else rich isn't the meaning of my life... good luck with your escape mission though.Yes it is, unfortunately. Everybody is working hard, from Monday to Friday, as if they knew something. What they know they can't phrase out, but they feel it. They feel the rush, the need to work their fingers to the bone. They feel that their time is running out.
To help you understand this, imagine waking up on an August morning at 8:00am, cold and chilling in a 16C temperature. Your room is dark, you open the binders and it's still nighttime, there is no sun. The sun is gone. By 4:00PM the apartment temperature drops below -30C. What do you think will happen? By the end of the week, everyone will be dead. Every single human being out there. Do you think it's right? Are you comfortable thinking about it? I am not, and most humans aren't comfortable with the idea. Of having to depend on so many things to live. You see, we are stuck on a rock called Earth that has been killing billions of humans in billion different ways since forever. We want off this rock...this...zoo, this prison. We want to be free and we can only achieve that through work and sacrifice. That, is the meaning of life. Yes we may have our outlets and fun but work is what matters most.
Are you making presumptions about me, my lifestyle choices, and how I would choose to educate my children now? That's a bit arrogant isn't it?
Einstein wasn't a piss head either i'm sure! He was a very well educated man, a lucky man. He gave us the A bomb... which might be the most deadly thing on this deadly rock.
Personally 'oxycodone'... I couldn't care less if you remember my name or not, what you think i am? some kind of meglamaniac? It means fuck all to me when i'm dead... Nobody will remember your name either, because you're a slave, a worker bee, a drone, you have no time to think about reality as einstein did.
Hmmm I think oxycodones Ideas are hardly objective. He doesn't seem to acknowledge any harmful affects of alcohol... in this day and age!I am rather dubious of these figures to be honest. What is your source for the "month half life" and for the assertion that it stays in fatty tissue?
It's your life man, do what you want with it but don't come seek my approval because you won't get it, nor will you prove me wrong.Are you making presumptions about me, my lifestyle choices, and how I would choose to educate my children now? That's a bit arrogant isn't it?
Einstein wasn't a piss head either i'm sure! He was a very well educated man, a lucky man. He gave us the A bomb... which might be the most deadly thing on this deadly rock.
Personally 'oxycodone'... I couldn't care less if you remember my name or not, what you think i am? some kind of meglamaniac? It means fuck all to me when i'm dead... Nobody will remember your name either, because you're a slave, a worker bee, a drone, you have no time to think about reality as einstein did.
Are you seeking approval too? Lol. The dipole moment of the THC molecule is very low, that's why it's fat soluble. Do you want me to change that figure?I am rather dubious of these figures to be honest. What is your source for the "month half life" and for the assertion that it stays in fatty tissue?
You've misread this thread. I'm not seeking aproaval. you really are making assumptions, I can forgive those assumptions but you should be more carefull... I raised a debate about the reasons for a hard substance being legal and a softer substance being illegal. I recieved a lot of interesting info about it.It's your life man, do what you want with it but don't come seek my approval because you won't get it, nor will you prove me wrong.Are you making presumptions about me, my lifestyle choices, and how I would choose to educate my children now? That's a bit arrogant isn't it?
Einstein wasn't a piss head either i'm sure! He was a very well educated man, a lucky man. He gave us the A bomb... which might be the most deadly thing on this deadly rock.
Personally 'oxycodone'... I couldn't care less if you remember my name or not, what you think i am? some kind of meglamaniac? It means fuck all to me when i'm dead... Nobody will remember your name either, because you're a slave, a worker bee, a drone, you have no time to think about reality as einstein did.
Just becuase i started this thread does not mean I need you to make assumptions that i'm a smoker, or that i will give my kids a joint when they wonder about the mystery of life. It makes you seem like an idiot dude.
Try to remember you know NO THING about me. Before you make assumptions, ask questions.
I apreciate you are trying to convince me cannabis is a bad thing for my health, which is nice, but you're logic is seriously lacking.
I don't need to prove you wrong.. you do it to yourself.
And most people combine weed and alcohol to obtain a decent high. The fact that you suggest this drastic choice shows that not only you get high but you don't even know how to do it properly. No drug is bad, ever. Emotionally persuading yourself that it is doesn't change a thing and only makes you stuck in your ways.
Who are you?
Where do you come from?
What do you do for work?
How old are you?
I'd be fascinated to get a glimps of where your head is at...
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.
Dynamite... now we'r getting somewhere!
Thanks lynx... It's probably the most useful plant known to man isn't it? now we have to were this synthetic crap that gives us all a static charge... unless we can afford decent fabric. Also paper made from hemp will last so much longer and be much stronger than the stuff we use today.
The marijuana tax act of 1937 was drafted by Harry Anslinger. When he wrote it he deliberately used the spanish word Marijuana rather than hemp or cannabis. Most farmers had never heard the spanish word for it. In addition Anslinger said such inflammatory remarks as "This weed Marijuana causes negroes and mexicans to become so inflamed with passion that they will go out and rape white women." This and other remarks sparked public outcry and led to the tax act. Many farmers were later shocked when they realized that Marijuana and the hemp they were growing for textile and paper use were one in the same.
Now lets discuss the stupidity of some of the things said about Cannabis vs. Alcohol.
Lets start with the LD50 of Cannabis vs Alcohol. The LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) of THC is 46g/kg where the LD50 of alcohol is only 7.06g/kg. This means that alcohol is 6 times as deadly as THC. Now lets factor in the fact that the concentrations of THC in 1 ounce of Cannabis range 10-25% This means a person weighing 70kg would have to consume over 6 pounds or 3kg of cannabis to die.
According to the CDC Non-accident related deaths from alcohol are
- Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 15,183
- Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 24,518
By comparison the number of non-accident related fatalities caused by Cannabis- 0, zilch, zip, nada, none. The CDC has NO RECORD of ANY deaths that can be attributed solely to the use of Marijuana.
Now let us look at accidents.
- In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
- Of the 1,314 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2009, 181 (14%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
- Of the 181 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2009, about half (92) were riding in the vehicle with the with the alcohol-impaired driver.
- In 2009, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's less than one percent of the 147 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
- 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.
Again the CDC has no statistics for accident related deaths that can be attributed directly and solely to Cannabis.
All data was found on the CDC website Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
except for the LD50 info which was taken from the Merck index 12th ed.
Last edited by dmwyant; August 18th, 2012 at 11:56 AM. Reason: Forgot sources
as/re why is it still illegal
(2nd wild guess du jour)
The drug lords hire lobbyist to keep it that way. It seems to be a very profitable enterprise with it's current proabition. $ talks in our corporatocracy/moneyocracy.
I'm with William F. Buckley
legalize it, tax it and move on.
Great contribution dm, cheers
no what I would like is for you to supply verifiable references to you claims.Are you seeking approval too? Lol. The dipole moment of the THC molecule is very low, that's why it's fat soluble. Do you want me to change that figure?I am rather dubious of these figures to be honest. What is your source for the "month half life" and for the assertion that it stays in fatty tissue?
Thanks dmwyant for the much better overview of the specifics then I would have been able to put together.
Why is cannabis illegal and alcohol legal?
When you have a conundrum that cannot be answered rationally, you look for an irrational answer.
Both cannabis and alcohol are harmful to human health and both cause traffic accidents. Rationally, both should be legal, or both should be illegal. Since that is not the case, you realise that the answer is irrational.
My own view is that alcohol is legal because people tried to prohibit it and could not. Since anyone can brew an alcoholic drink in a plastic rubbish bin in his/her basement, it is impossible to ban it, so why try?
The problem is that the same applies to cannabis. it is very easy to grow, and especially in a warm climate. Despite massive efforts to stop cannabis cultivation and trade, there has been no success. Logically, legalising it is the smart move. There is no rational reason not to legalise it, and lots of rational reasons to show that would be a good thing. So the reason it is not legalised must be irrational. My best guess is simply that the powers that be refuse to admit they were wrong in the first place by making it illegal. An emotional, rather than rational reason.
Some interesting points skeptic.
You say both should be legal or none.. but in fact it could be said that if any should be legal it should be the herb... as verified by dm's post.
I suppose one problem with banning alcohol is that people like it sooo much and know how to produce it, which means theres still an economic downside from accidents, health prblems but with none of the tax to pay for the clean up. though banning it would certainly reduce consumption greatly...
Cannabis is more difficult to monopolise and tax... if it were legal people could grow it a lot easier than they could produce a nice drink, therefor it would be better to have it illegal. As an illegal drug it is easier to monopolise, albiet by criminal methods.
Should a government really have the right to tell people what they can and can't do with there own body and mind? especially when they say... you can kill yourself with this substance, and we will reap the tax, but you can't expand your mind with this other substance even though it's not as dangerous to you as the one we make legal.
Bob marley has to be brought into this debate at some point!
In an interview he was asked why he smoked the herb: "cause it make ya meditate mon, it make ya think" then he was asked about alcohol: "alcohol don't make ya conscious mon, it make ya stupid!"
That for me sums up one of the real reasons for the apparently irrational position of the authorities.
Cause cannabis makes you conscious, and drink makes you stupid...
In a so called democracy... the majority apparently make the rules... so if the majority are less conscious and more stupid then it's easier to influence and down right manipulate their opinions.
I should add for the kids... cannabis only makes you conscious if you know how to use it right, and you use the right types... Bob Marley and the old rastas didn't smoke skunk and cheese varieties produced in labs in amsterdam, he smoked natural strains, and in the rasta way of life, cannabis is treated with massive respect. Too much won't help you be conscious, it just makes ya stupid mon! Moderation should always be practised. In fact my advice would be, don't bother with it, it's too expensive and has been played around with too much.
The active ingridient is THC and there's other substances, about 400 hundred compounds. In the modern types of weed the THC levels have been increased deliberately but the levels of the other substances which act like a natural antidote have been ignored... Thats why more and more mental health problems are being associated with the use of cannabis. It's not like alcohol where you can add more or less or it to a drink depending on how drunk you want to get. Cannabis is a balance of many chemical compounds and if that balance is changed then the way it works on the body and mind will be changed, not just increased and decreased, but it wil have a completely different effect on the user.
I'm Dan, come from Canada, I'm a Chemist/Engineer working in nanotechnology research and development. I'm 26.Who are you?
Where do you come from?
What do you do for work?
How old are you?
I'd be fascinated to get a glimps of where your head is at...
Listen, I myself don't oppose marihuana legalization, I think it should be legalized. But when you start a topic saying:
"What's the real reason for this seemingly absurd position held by the authorities?"
The topic is now biased so you are suggesting that this topic is idol worship where we worship THC. I like to have a fair debate so I automatically challenge the position to make the debate fair.
Did you know for example that weed smokers can never grow lung cancer compared to tobacco smokers? Ever. The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells and in very incipient lung cancer cases, cure it. It's also a great painkiller. So it does have many benefits but it also has adverse effects:
1) Half-Life. When chemists like myself release a drug on the market, it's half life cannot be of 59 hours+ ok? Even if the drug saves lives, the half life is too long man, the FDA will likely reject it. No one likes having in the system some crap for weeks. We all want to take medication and after 24 hours of stopping the medication we want to feel normal. With weed it's not the case.
2) Brain. Weed influences the brain. It doesn't make you smarter, it makes you dumber, both cognitive, IQ and memory wise. These things are hard to quantify as studies have not been made but you can trust me on this one.
Was it banned for profit and conflict of interests? Yes. I don't argue. In fact, do you know a drug called Metamizole that was also banned due to conflict of interests? The pain killer was so cheap to produce, was as strong as morphine, had no addiction potential that they took it off the market. Why? Because pharmaceutical companies wanted to sell Tylenol, Advil and aspirin. They didn't want you to spend 5$ on 100 pills and never worry about migraines again. They wanted you to suffer, and pay.
The issue is not there. The issue is that THC alters your brain. Yes alcohol is bad for the body in general and I believe it's worst than weed, but in long term brain function affect, weed is more nasty than alcohol. We are generation Rx, ourkids are alreadyon medication...do they really need some weed too?
Also, weed opens the possibility for a variety of drug abuse methods. To give you an example, this was posted on bluelight a while ago:
That's someone who knows how to get high by the way because he obtains a lot of pleasure, does not develop tolerance to it, is able to sustain his addiction and leads a healthy lifestyle. They never mention these ones on TV, it's always the ones that die.
Do you see the problem? Would you feel comfortable if your son tried weed, read that, and then tried some anti-depressants or oxycodone to get that wonderful feeling. How would you feel, if you walked in his room one morning, and found him lying there?
I disagree; he said "seemingly" meaning that this is how it appeared to him. And also implying that he was open to evidence either way (one would hope, anyway).
Really? Do you have any evidence for that?Did you know for example that weed smokers can never grow lung cancer compared to tobacco smokers? Ever. The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells and in very incipient lung cancer cases, cure it.
This article, for instance, suggest that there may be a link between cannabis use and various cancers, including lung cancer, but that more research is need.
Does smoking cannabis cause cancer? : Cancer Research UK : CancerHelp UK
UK...meh, UK is addicted to codeine, they don't really need cannabis haha! Here's some links:I disagree; he said "seemingly" meaning that this is how it appeared to him. And also implying that he was open to evidence either way (one would hope, anyway).
Really? Do you have any evidence for that?Did you know for example that weed smokers can never grow lung cancer compared to tobacco smokers? Ever. The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells and in very incipient lung cancer cases, cure it.
This article, for instance, suggest that there may be a link between cannabis use and various cancers, including lung cancer, but that more research is need.
Does smoking cannabis cause cancer? : Cancer Research UK : CancerHelp UK
More Evidence That Marijuana Prevents Cancer | Alternet
Can Marijuana Prevent Cancer? - Medical Cannabis Journal
Marijuana News | MMJ USA | Marijuana Blog: US Government Proves that Marijuana Prevents Cancer... on Accident
What has codeine got to do with cancer research? You are suggesting that the article is biased? And yet it says there is some evidence of anticancer properties. It says there is no clear evidence either way.
Those don't appear to be exactly unbiased either. However, the second one says:
Is the evidence incontrovertible that cannabis can inhibit the spread of cancer, kill cancer cells and prevent the development of cancer? No it is not
Sorry Dan, but that is crap.
In fact, smoke from any and all sources is carcinogenic.
People in Iceland, for example, have high levels of lip, tongue and throat cancer, since they eat a lot of smoked meats. Buddhist monks in Thailand have high levels of lung cancer, since they breath incense smoke all day. African peasant women also have high rates of lung cancer, since they cook over open wood and dung fires, which give off smoke they breath.
The reason for this is that smoke contains carcinogens like PAH's and nitrosamines. Cannabis smoke contains just as many carcinogens on a weight weight basis as any other smoke. The only reason it is not a major problem for cannabis smokers (as opposed to tobacco smokers) is that the pot addict inhales less smoke per unit time. But the carcinogens are still going into his/her lungs, and the increase in lung cancer risk is still there.
Alcohol is very bad for the human body also, if taken in excess. Personally, I think the world would be better off if there was no potable alcohol and no cannabis. However, both do exist, and experience tells us that it is impossible to ban their use, so it is better to legalise, regulate, tax, and try to gain a level of control over both.
Hi Dan,
Nano research, very interesting! Whats the latest developments you can tell us about?
Now then, strange defended my position, of course i'm always open to evidence for and against and I was referring to the apparent absurdity of having alcohol legal and cannabis illegal... it wasn't meant to suggest weed is an idol... if you suggest that then i'll say alcohol is held up as an idol at the moment shall I? But as for automatically challenging the position, I know where you're coming from. Seemingly absurd doesn't sound impartial, others called it irrational, how about: apparent contradiction of standards?
I did hear about THC staying in the system a long time.
Our kids are on medication? Oh dear.
I think all of us here have seriously missed the point, especially post #4 and the comments that followed from it.
No one ever had to "make" alcohol legal. It was pretty much essential to life; alcohol made itself legal. How?
sourceAt times and places of poor public sanitation (such as Medieval Europe), the consumption of alcoholic drinks was a way of avoiding water-borne diseases such as cholera. Small beer and faux wine, in particular, were used for this purpose. Although alcohol kills bacteria, its low concentration in these beverages would have had only a limited effect. More important was that the boiling of water (required for the brewing of beer) and the growth of yeast (required for fermentation of beer and wine) would tend to kill dangerous microorganisms. The alcohol content of these beverages allowed them to be stored for months or years in simple wood or clay containers without spoiling. For this reason, they were commonly kept aboard sailing vessels as an important (or even the sole) source of hydration for the crew, especially during the long voyages of the early modern period.
One the other hand, marijuana was never essential to life.
For this reason, they were commonly kept aboard sailing vessels as an important (or even the sole) source of hydration for the crew, especially during the long voyages of the early modern period.
Sailing ships that were entirely dependent on hemp for for rigging and carval plank caulking (often referred to as Oakum). Having a strong interest in maritime history, I was familiar with its smell from visiting dozens of museums well before exposed to it in High School.
NEW ENGLAND'S HEMP HISTORY
No I don't think the point was missed, the contradiction still existing was the interesting thing, rather than how it came about, but people have gone into details on how cannabis was made illegal and now you've spoken about the history of alcohol, so that's good.
Nobody said anything about making alcohol legal, athough alcohol was made legal after the prohibition in the states wasn't it? I had heard about the times when beer was essential as there wasn't clean water. We've been used to drink for quite a long time!
I think hemp has played a big part as a material at least.
Hemp is not the same as pot. Hemp is a fibre, and the plant producing hemp has very little of the tetrahydrocannabinol that makes you high when you smoke pot. While Hemp and pot both come from the Cannabis sativa plant, they come from different strains. Smoking hemp would be terribly frustrating, since it would not make you high.
The US government restrictions don't distinguish between the common fiber species and its more psychoactive sub-species.
I did not know that. I question it. Please provide appropriate citations. These will need to counteract such well researched conclusions as this :
Conclusion Given the prevalence of marijuana smoking and studies predominantly supporting biological plausibility of an association of marijuana smoking with lung cancer on the basis of molecular, cellular, and histopathologic findings, physicians should advise patients regarding potential adverse health outcomes until further rigorous studies are performed that permit definitive conclusions.
Source: Mehra, R. et al "The Association Between Marijuana Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review" Archives of Internal Medicine July 19, 2006 Vol 166, No. 13
Yes, they don't want to say categorically yes or categorically no but I personally am sure it's a yes. It's like nickel oxide versus nickel nanoparticles. Nickel nano particles are not toxic enough to kill the cell, so it infiltrates it instead and causes modification, thus, cancer. Nickel oxide is too toxic so it kills the cell, not allowing cancer development. I think weed is too toxic to allow the cell to survive long enough to become carcinogenic.
Last edited by Oxycodone; August 20th, 2012 at 10:26 PM.
Ah, and here's me thinking this was a science forum...
Ah, and here's me thinking this was a science forum...
There's plenty of misunderstandings about prohibition.
Before federal prohibition, many states already enacted their own state-wide prohibitions, and most of America lived under some form of prohibition. Temperance movements called for federal prohibition, in part, as an attempt to reduce the abuse and rape suffered by women by their alcoholic husbands. To enact the federal prohibition itself, both houses had to approve it (ie, senators and representatives from most states), then it went to every state legislature for their ratification (46 state legislatures ratified it, and 2 rejected it), and then the US secretary of state had to certify it.
Even today, 33 states have laws which allow localities to prohibit the sale (and in some cases, consumption and possession) of liquor. Here’s a sampling of current prohibitions by state. Alabama has 67 counties, 3 of which are completely dry, and 23 are partially dry or "moist". Arkansas has 75 counties, of which more than half are dry. Florida has 67 counties, 4 of which are dry. Kentucky has 120 counties, 43 of which are completely dry, and 45 are considered partially dry or "moist". Massachusetts has a few dry municipalities, but no dry counties. Pennsylvania has several dry municipalities, but no dry counties. Texas has 254 counties, 22 of which are completely dry, and 183 are partially dry or "moist". source
Our brain is not perfect so we need an outlet, weather it's alcohol, drugs, meditation or entertainment. As long as the physiological need will exist, those things will never go away. People can get bored, depressed and anxious. I remember when I was a kid, I was living in a 5 room apartment, with 2 color TVs, 3 bedrooms, stainless steel kitchen, french cheeze etc. and I remember my mother arguing with my dad, screaming and crying that she couldn't take this life anymore, as if she was living in Africa without running water. People have this disease, and alcohol or weed can be a cure in some cases.
Oxycodone- Are you basing all your statements strictly on your gut feelings?
Weed is too toxic to allow a cell to become a carcinogen? What the hell does that even mean?
Haha flick. I'm not a chemist, biologist or cancer specialist... perhaps that why his comment made sense to me huh?
is there no truth in the idea that an injured cell can become cancerous but a dead cell can't?
Yes, there is. What the people above are looking for is an easy way out, that is, a study. They refuse to use reason and engage into a scientific discussion because they only want a study on a silver platter.
Nanoparticle toxicity is my specialty. You know, with the up-rise of nanotechnology nowadays more and more people look into the health effects of those particles which can of course be found in smoke as well. We have observed that toxicity is not proportional to carcinogenicity. In fact, particles which only receive the label "irritating" can in fact be much more carcinogen than a particle listed as a 3 or a 4 on the reactivity index (4 means it sets your skin on fire upon contact. Manganese heptoxide is a pertinent example.). So the substance must be toxic enough to interfere with DNA but must not be too toxic so that the cell can survive and mutate.
If the substance kills the cell, no cancer will result.
Thanks.
What is cancer? I know it's a desease, I know it's named after a crab, I know it looks like a crab kinda... I don't know how big it is, where it comes from, how it gets in the body... is it an organism? a parasite? or a cellular reaction to toxicity?
Ya I made a typoWeed is too toxic to allow a cell to become a carcinogen? What the hell does that even mean?
That's the thing, it's not a virus bacteria or a parasite. It's you. Well, almost you. It's a part of you that has slightly mutated and interferes with your body functions mostly by growing out of control.
Was it that you said the cell would be carcinogen? isn't a carcinogen a cause of cancer rather than a cancerous cell?
Ya I made a typo thanks for pointing it out.
But lots of stuff inside me is me, yet it's also an organism in it's own right. Cancer is mutated cells?That's the thing, it's not a virus bacteria or a parasite. It's you. Well, almost you. It's a part of you that has slightly mutated and interferes with your body functions mostly by growing out of control.
And these mutations can be brought on by many things... so whats with the sudden increase in cancer cases? never used to happen did it?
Maybe it happened and they didn't know it was cancer due to lack of technology, or because so many people were wiped out by other diseases that cancer stood small in a corner and got unnoticed, until today when we have the ability to cure almost everything...aside from cancer and aids. This can have an effect of making those seem more prevalent.But lots of stuff inside me is me, yet it's also an organism in it's own right. Cancer is mutated cells?That's the thing, it's not a virus bacteria or a parasite. It's you. Well, almost you. It's a part of you that has slightly mutated and interferes with your body functions mostly by growing out of control.
And these mutations can be brought on by many things... so whats with the sudden increase in cancer cases? never used to happen did it?
Eating stuff from bags instead of healthy food doesn't help either...do you know that they add Aluminum in cookies? As aluminum phosphate? You basically don't want to put that in your body, and guys, don't ask me for a study to prove that AlPO4 is toxic, I'm enjoying my evening, I'm not paid to provide consultation here. If you believe me that it's toxic, fine, else, stuff yourself with it. I got nothing to prove, it's a free world. I'm a chemist and this is my opinion. Take it or leave it.
It's beyond belief that they would do that... yet i beleive it 100%
Things like that really bug me. What kind of world is this?
The main reason we have more cancers today is that cancer is a disease mostly of old age, and people live longer today. Everyone has to die of something, and since smallpox and other infectious diseases are not longer weeding out the young, people die in old age, meaning many more cancers.
Dan, I am afraid your references for cannabis as a cure for cancer are not terribly impressive. Referring to political groups trying to promote cannabis as sources for information on cannabis for cancer is not helpful.
I am very aware that cannabis smoke, like that of tobacco, wood, coal, incense and other smokes, is full of carcinogens. Cannabis is cancer causing if you smoke it. The only reason it is less carcinogenic than tobacco is that the average pot smoker inhales less smoke than the average tobacco smoker.
Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer
You don't have to believe me, just type the name of the substance on google and look for the definition. It is listed as a food additive.
I never said that, re-read my post. I mean...did you even read what I said earlier about the nickel oxide example and particle toxicity? I said weed does not CAUSE cancer. NOT CAUSING cancer is not equal to CURING cancer. I'm done here. Don't ever put words in my mouth again.
P.S. Can anyone explain the toxicity part to him? I give up.
This looks suspiciously like a claim that cannabis can cure cancer.
I think you underestimate how fast cells come and go. Do you know that every 7 years every single cell in your body is replaced? If we put a marker on each of your cells right now, in 7 years, we couldn't detect a single one. It's not like, you're born with one set of lungs and you die with it, everything flows, evolves. When you go to bed at night, you don't wake up as the same person, a part of you has died, you just don't notice it.This looks suspiciously like a claim that cannabis can cure cancer.
Malignous cancer cells however can renew every 3 or 2 years or even faster, so they grow faster than the other cells without doing their job. EVERYTHING is about the moments when the DNA is modified. What happens in the next hours from there can make a difference between life and death. If weed smoke affects the cell and causes a DNA mutation, the cell is now your enemy! If weed can be toxic enough to kill that cell, it could save your life! You get it? There's nothing more I could do to explain this.
It's my personal belief that weed is much more toxic than tobacco and thus, less carcinogenic. You can't prove it right and you can't prove it wrong, so it's Religion. You believe or you don't believe. If you think that doesn't belong in a science forum, than the String Theory doesn't belong here either since there's no proof for it. There's no paper! Go tell off Brian Greene, tell him there's no paper on Google to prove his theory. You guys do that.
Dan
First of all, that story about total cell renewal every 7 years is not accurate. For a start, many cells renew at a much slower rate, like bone cells and brain cells. Some renew faster. It may be approximately correct as an overall average, but it is definitely not true for all cells.
On cancer cells, introducing a toxin is not sufficient in itself. It has to be the correct type of toxin. Ideally, you want a toxin that affects fast growing cells more than slow growing ones. This is what chemotherapy does. It is also the reason why cancer patients lose hair, since the cells that produce hair are also fast growing and get killed off by the chemotherapy toxins.
The one thing I know about the comparison between cannabis and tobacco smoke is related to dose. A smaller dose means less harm, and most pot smokers inhale less smoke. Thus a lower dose and less harm. Better still to inhale no smoke at all.
Fluoroantimonic acid is toxic enough? Make it fluoroantimonic acid for the sake of discussion
No you don't, you're not treating cancer here! You forgot what I said about the moment. Imagine you're the Terminator sent back from the future, walking down a corridor with an automatic weapon in 1910, and in a classroom there's 30 students among which there's Hitler. So you open fire and kill Hitler along with 7 other students. Of the 8 casualties, only 1 was a bad guy, so the selectivity is extremely poor. However, considering that Hitler would later cause 50 million people to die, 7 casualties is a small price to pay. 30 casualties is a small price to pay. You might as well nuke the entire town and it would be a small price to pay. Here, Hitler, is the cancerous cell, that, if left alone, will destroy...everything.
If the smoke is toxic, it creates a mathematical probability for the deviant cell to die before it grows out of control. It's a probability that can be estimated with a fractional factorial, could be 13%, 53% 96% we don't know. This reduces the chances to get cancer. Nuking the town in this case would be surgery. If you smoke tobacco, it's like walking in the classroom with a baby gun, don't kill anyone, then get jumped by Police and fail at life. LOL I suck at explaining stuff...I mean it's hard too, fuck my life it's hard to understand, took me a while to get it back in school. I guess you're lucky I don't got better shit to do with my time haha
Put it this way, do you got better chances to get lung cancer if X lung cells die daily or if 3X lung cells die daily? The rate of cellular death is an important bioparameter that no one is considering here.
Last edited by Oxycodone; August 21st, 2012 at 12:27 AM.
Dan
If your toxin is designed to kill cancer cells, rather than heaps of normal cells, they have to be selective. That means a special toxin. Not just any old toxin. Even if you are talking of killing a million normal cells to get rid of one cancer cell, that is being selective, since there are a trillion other cells you cannot kill if you want the patient to survive.
Oxy- I will repeat my question...
Are any of your assertions based on anything but your personal feeling and gut reactions?
Found a video on cannabis which seems pretty good, I've only seen the first few minutes so far, so i'm not sure what the over all message of the video is.
Medical Cannabis and It’s Impact on Human Health
No, not the gut man, the penis. I base my assertions on penile feelings and reaction of ejaculation
No that's not selective treatment. Selective treatment will kill more cancer cells than normal cells in number.
Trying again for an actual serious answer...
Got any evidence it is toxic?
No? What a surprise.
Why do you just keep making stuff up?
Presumably because you are too stoned to know truth from fantasy. Oh well.I'm enjoying my evening
Obviously a chemist whose opinions are worthless.I'm a chemist and this is my opinion.
Cool story FAGGot any evidence it is toxic?
No? What a surprise.
Why do you just keep making stuff up?
Presumably because you are too stoned to know truth from fantasy. Oh well.I'm enjoying my evening
Obviously a chemist whose opinions are worthless.I'm a chemist and this is my opinion.
I'm serious.Trying again for an actual serious answer...
You are serious that your assertions are based on nothing but your personal feeling and gut reactions?I'm serious.Trying again for an actual serious answer...
That seems to be the case.
Well you haven't come with any counter arguments so it's not like you can prove me wrong or anythingYou are serious that your assertions are based on nothing but your personal feeling and gut reactions?I'm serious.Trying again for an actual serious answer...
That seems to be the case.
Stay small.
Moderator Warning to oxycodone:
earlier you made this statement:
Did you know for example that weed smokers can never grow lung cancer compared to tobacco smokers? Ever. The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells and in very incipient lung cancer cases, cure it.
When asked for a citation to justify this claim you made this post.
Immediately desist from expressing opinions as if they were scientific facts. This is especially reprehensible when someone accepting your assertion as fact could embark on potentially damaging practices, as in this case.
If you disagree with this moderator's action please use the Report Post function to raise the issue further.
My counter-argument is: it's not fricking toxic. And, as you said, you have no evidence that it is. So why keep making these lies up? Attention seeking?
The crackpot's prayer, "Prove Me Wrong!" For use when you have no evidence to offer.
I have a pet unicorn: Prove Me Wrong!
What's its name?My counter-argument is: it's not fricking toxic. And, as you said, you have no evidence that it is. So why keep making these lies up? Attention seeking?
The crackpot's prayer, "Prove Me Wrong!" For use when you have no evidence to offer.
I have a pet unicorn: Prove Me Wrong!
Not willing to admit you lied, then?
"That's a funny name for a unicorn", b'dum-tsh)
lol
Or ...
No, that is it's name: "Prove Me Wrong"
"That's a funny name for a unicorn", etc.
Moderator Question:
Which part of Immediately desist from expressing opinions as if they were scientific facts did you not understand?
Your comments in posts #80 and #82 when combined with your prior post #77 and prior implicitly assert that your opinion in this matter is actually a fact.
Please make a clear statement that your posts in this regard are opinions, or provide adequate and proper citations to suggest there is a strong possibility that they are fact. Alternatively accept a two day suspension.
That's right. I told my wife"honey, I'd like a little pussy" so she said "I'd like one too! Mine's as big as a house!"
when we were young, we had a pet unicorn, his name was phydeaux(pronounced fido)
but the neighbor needed a hat rack, and that horn was just too damned tempting.
then the archtypal asshole had the temerity to offer us some phydeaux stew
god damn his eyes
but that stew was so tasty
maybe it was the chives? or cumin?
Just CTRL+F the word opinion...I said it in my posts.
We had a dog called Fido. When we wanted it to enter the house we said cumin.
Your post "Well you haven't come with any counter arguments so it's not like you can prove me wrong or anythingJust CTRL+F the word opinion...I said it in my posts.
Obscene post deleted by John Galt.
Regardless of the comedic value of this deleted item, the forum is visited by teenagers and younger. Please refrain from this sort of thing.
And really, don't test my patience any further!
Last edited by John Galt; August 22nd, 2012 at 11:41 AM. Reason: remove obscene joke (?)
You didn't say it in this post:
Claiming that a harmless food additive is toxic is just silly and misleading.
Claiming that something is a guaranteed cure or preventative for cancer is grossly immoral and pretty offensive.
Keep in mind that my statements are open for debate, thus, it's not fact. Weather AlPO4 is harmless or not is debatable, it is aluminum afterall, when you eat a cookie you don't toss in some aluminum foil with phosphoric acid to begin with. As for:
You clearly do not have the capacity to understand what I have explained in post #64 and #66.
The data is currently not available for incedence of lung cancer as a result of cannabis smoking, mostly due to the difficulty in performing studies due to the legality issues. However the current evidence is suggestive that there is a risk factor for cannabis but this is a little blurry due to common practice of mixing cannabis and tobacco and the fact that many cannabis smokers are also tobacco smokers. Whilst it is not fully confirmed studies have indicated that cannabis can increase the risk of developing lung cancer
Yes, we are aware of that ^_^
I have searched through some of the literature and have only been able to find one study which has linked cannabis to a slower lung tumour growth (As far as I could see there are none claiming that it can cure lung cancer)... A single study is hardly a statistically significant amount of evidence so claim that it cures cancer
I never argued over weather or not weed could cure cancer, people who put those words in my mouth don't have the faculty to read. I said "in very incipient cases" very incipient means a few cells. It's undetectable with any instruments. Don't worry about it though, it's all good. It's my fault for wasting time here and not having a better occupation so I'm the only one to blame.
You may want to backtrack and lie about what you said, rather than apologising, but your words are still there:
And, as you seem to agree, there is no good evidence for this. Even in "very incipient cases".The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells
It is not "all good". It is malicious and deliberate spreading of false information which could harm people.
Yes you idiot it can clear cancerous cells, that doesn't make it cancer treatment. You don't understand anything, act like a 5 year old and don't even listen to people who do. I can take you to the lab and show you. You put cancerous cells in a vial, add weed smoke to it, minutes later, the cells die.You may want to backtrack and lie about what you said, rather than apologising, but your words are still there:
And, as you seem to agree, there is no good evidence for this. Even in "very incipient cases".The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells
It is not "all good". It is malicious and deliberate spreading of false information which could harm people.
The smoke clears out any cells, not just cancerous. It is a non selective toxin. Yet, since it kills more cells, the rate of death can lower the chance of cancer if the mutagen effect is below a certain treshold.
Can my advice harm people? If you decide to smoke weed, or smoke anything at all, you're an idiot and my advice couldn't influence your bad judgement in any way.
Provide citations for the research papers that show these claims to be true.Yes you idiot it can clear cancerous cells, that doesn't make it cancer treatment. You don't understand anything, act like a 5 year old and don't even listen to people who do. I can take you to the lab and show you. You put cancerous cells in a vial, add weed smoke to it, minutes later, the cells die.You may want to backtrack and lie about what you said, rather than apologising, but your words are still there:
And, as you seem to agree, there is no good evidence for this. Even in "very incipient cases".The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells
It is not "all good". It is malicious and deliberate spreading of false information which could harm people.
The smoke clears out any cells, not just cancerous. It is a non selective toxin. Yet, since it kills more cells, the rate of death can lower the chance of cancer if the mutagen effect is below a certain treshold.
Can my advice harm people? If you decide to smoke weed, or smoke anything at all, you're an idiot and my advice couldn't influence your bad judgement in any way.
Surely this is just killing cells through lack of oxygen? that would be hard to accomplish in any practical treatment.Yes you idiot it can clear cancerous cells, that doesn't make it cancer treatment. You don't understand anything, act like a 5 year old and don't even listen to people who do. I can take you to the lab and show you. You put cancerous cells in a vial, add weed smoke to it, minutes later, the cells die.You may want to backtrack and lie about what you said, rather than apologising, but your words are still there:
And, as you seem to agree, there is no good evidence for this. Even in "very incipient cases".The weed smoke can actually clear out cancerous cells
It is not "all good". It is malicious and deliberate spreading of false information which could harm people.
The smoke clears out any cells, not just cancerous. It is a non selective toxin. Yet, since it kills more cells, the rate of death can lower the chance of cancer if the mutagen effect is below a certain treshold.
Can my advice harm people? If you decide to smoke weed, or smoke anything at all, you're an idiot and my advice couldn't influence your bad judgement in any way.
I must say that your posts contain a lot of ad hominem attacks... not sure they aid you in any particular way other than to polarise people against you
| « Dunning-Kruger Effect, does it affect you? | New study on psychopathy » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
31Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
