[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I doubt this very much.

I said "many". 100 to me is many. Of course, 100 people out of an entire population is meaningless. But the fact is that you're arguing over the meaning of the word "many".

Legalize and regulate, and this problem goes away.

And the other problems?
That's like fixing a flat tire by removing it completely.

[von Wrangell]

Well, it seems like this thread has gone down the shitter......

(like 90% of threads around here lately)

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

An unworthy over-generalization of Canadians.


Your memory of Canadian history is faulty.


There is no "resurgence" of anything. The Liberals were tossed because the Tories and Reformers were no longer splitting the vote.

Like you, I too hate people misrepresenting Canada.

Speaking of faulty memory. The Reform party was formed out of the carcass of the PC party. The PC party became irrelevant after that. I was a PC supporter and then *gasp* I supported the Reform party.


We Progressive Conservatives felt betrayed by the leadership of the party and went to look for a party that was looking to reform our government and its institutions. It filled the vacuum.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Speaking of faulty memory. The Reform party was formed out of the carcass of the PC party.

Not quite. The PC party was still alive and well when the Reform party started.

Originally Posted by aristotles

We Progressive Conservatives felt betrayed by the leadership of the party and went to look for a party that was looking to reform our government and its institutions. It filled the vacuum.

Can you fill a vacuum from the opposition benches? Until the two parties merged there was no hope for conservatives to ever govern Canada.

This is what really happened. The Reform party was formed by those who complained the Tories weren't "conservative" enough. They rejected the "big tent" of Red Tories, social conservatives, neo-cons, and so on. They wanted a monolithic conservative party with no compromises.

When the certainty of continued opposition status sunk in, those same conservatives went crawling back to the Tories, begging them to join forces with them to oust the Liberals.

And so today, we again have a "big tent" conservative party, just like it used to be. Those twelve or so years in the desert were a waste of time. Had Manning et al worked within the PC party from the outset, those twelve years could have been very different.

[Kevin]

I 've tried cannabis a number of times, and I quit after I had a bad experience with it and ended up vomiting for an hour. Most pot nowadays is not "natural" like everyone thinks.

One of my old friends described a popular way of preparing dried marijuana:
- Harvest the plant
- Fill a bathtub up with water
- Put some chlorine, arsenic, etc into the water (formaldehyde was formerly used, but isn't so popular anymore)
- Put the marijuana in the tub, and let it soak overnight
- Drain, dry, and sell

These cheap chemicals basically give a stronger effect to the drug (lacing).

Pure FUD, and "Your old friend" if he exists, is an idiot.

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Pure FUD, and "Your old friend" if he exists, is an idiot.

All I'm saying is not to always trust that every joint you smoke contains 100% pure weed (unless you make it yourself of course).

I'm all for mind-affecting drugs used in moderation; I think they can open your mind somewhat. When you go so far from reality, it's a one-of-a-kind experience, but when you get back, you sort of appreciate it more, have a bigger picture of it in your head.

Moderation would be like, once every couple months. Otherwise it starts to affect important aspects of life.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

All I'm saying is not to always trust that every joint you smoke contains 100% pure weed (unless you make it yourself of course).

1. I don't smoke
2. It's still FUD.

Anyone that smokes pot would be able to tell RIGHT OFF if someone was "up"

It simply would not taste the same.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

All I'm saying is not to always trust that every joint you smoke contains 100% pure weed (unless you make it yourself of course).

Why? Cause some fool told you so? What you're talking about makes very little sense.

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by Kevin

1. I don't smoke
2. It's still FUD.

Anyone that smokes pot would be able to tell RIGHT OFF if someone was "up"

It simply would not taste the same.

I agree, but that's a big assumption to make.

Anyway, I was pretty sick that night, and pretty high. It's never happened before, and I concluded there was something in the weed. Others who smoked off the blunt also didn't feel so hot.

I agree that it's wrong to put additives in the weed, but the world revolves around money, not ethics. If I was preparing the weed, why wouldn't I put a few cheap chemicals in it to make a few extra bucks while giving people a stronger high?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It simply would not taste the same.

That's just your opinion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I agree, but that's a big assumption to make.

It's not even a assumption. I've smoked pot. Pot tastes a certain way. When you mix chemicals into the pot, it makes it taste differently (I've smoke pot laced with coke before, different taste)

No assumption made.

Anyway, I was pretty sick that night, and pretty high. It's never happened before, and I concluded there was something in the weed. Others who smoked off the blunt also didn't feel so hot.

That is a big assumption to make. It could very well just got say on for a long time and developed mold. Which also makes pot taste different.

I agree that it's wrong to put additives in the weed, but the world revolves around money, not ethics. If I was preparing the weed, why wouldn't I put a few cheap chemicals in it to make a few extra bucks while giving people a stronger high?

No one is going to pay more for pot like that. You simply don't understand potheads.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That's just your opinion.

If you are going to do this, atleast do it correctly.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

Also, marijuana smoke contains 50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke, and marijuana smokers tend to inhale as much as they can at a time and hold it in as long as possible, giving the smoke more time to cling to lung tissue. So, puff for puff, marijuana smoke is substantially more harmful than tobacco smoke. The only thing is that tobacco (or nicotine, I should say) is more addictive. But at the same time, many people who would be considered "smokers" actually smoke less tobacco than the average marijuana user smokes weed.

Why compare it to tobacco? Because you're looking to make it look bad. Compare it to alcohol, and it'll look fanastic. I'd rather have a world of pot smokers than a world of drinkers. Why? It's not as bad for you as alcohol. It's not as impairing as alcohol. A stoner is more pleasant than a drunk. Pot won't kill you; alcohol will.

Living in Austin, the legality of marijuana is a major issue around here. But, ironically, the people that uphold very strong opinions toward the legalization of the drug are usually the ones that know little, if any, facts about it.

The only reason pot remains illegal is due to FUD. Government marketing junk about it being a gateway drug is just ludicrous. You're either the type of person that would do heroin or you aren't. Yeah, a lot of heroin users used pot first, but that's because they were going to do drugs and pot was the easiest to find. The pot didn't lead them to the heroin.

Pot will one day be legal because it makes no sense for it to be illegal. If you can legally smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, then you certainly ought to be able to smoke pot. The people opposed to it are full of arguments that show their complete ignorance of it.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I agree that it's wrong to put additives in the weed, but the world revolves around money, not ethics.

Most pot dealers aren't business people. They're just looking to get some cash to eat and get more pot. Yeah, there are some bad ones, just like there are bad people in any business.

If I was preparing the weed, why wouldn't I put a few cheap chemicals in it to make a few extra bucks while giving people a stronger high?

Because you'll lose your market. Pot smokers have a bond with each other and if you screw with their weed, they won't buy it again. If you have any fantasy that you're going to lace their weed and they won't notice, you're nuts. You think cigar smokers can't tell a good one from a bad one? It's the same with weed. There are known (and named) varieties and many smokers buy specific varieties.

If you think that pot smokers are addicts who'll get their next fix any way they can, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most regular pot smokers know what they're smoking, who they got it from, and who sells what varieties at what prices.

[jamil5454]

I have no problem with the smoking of marijuana, I just have a problem with doing it every freakin day. Same with alcohol, and any drug in fact.

The only reason I'm advocating this is because I have a group of friends that started smoking nearly every day, and to be honest, they've lost their passion for the things they used to get excited about. They've got more of a pessimistic, dismal outlook on life. I'm sure it's not everyone, but the day after I smoke I sure as hell feel like doing nothing.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Why compare it to tobacco? Because you're looking to make it look bad. Compare it to alcohol, and it'll look fanastic. I'd rather have a world of pot smokers than a world of drinkers. Why? It's not as bad for you as alcohol. It's not as impairing as alcohol. A stoner is more pleasant than a drunk. Pot won't kill you; alcohol will.

That's, forgive me, is total nonsense.
Alcohol, when consumed in moderation, is actually health enhancing. Pot, when smoked, is cancerogenic, from the word go.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

That's, forgive me, is total nonsense.
Alcohol, when consumed in moderation, is actually health enhancing. Pot, when smoked, is cancerogenic, from the word go.

I bet if you smoked alcohol it wouldn't be any good for you, either! Make some brownies if you're not a fan of sucking down smoke.

Really, though, I'm referring to the college aged party crowd (where pot is more prevalent). No one is drinking in moderation. Compare mass consumption of alcohol to mass consumption of pot, and pot beats alcohol hands down across the board.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Compare mass consumption of alcohol to mass consumption of pot, and pot beats alcohol hands down across the board.

Wrong.

And before you go off on a rant I suggest you work at a mental detox facility for a while. Just to see how "good" pot is.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Wrong.

And before you go off on a rant I suggest you work at a mental detox facility for a while. Just to see how "good" pot is.

OK, let's make this perfectly clear, the chemical known as THC, the thing in pot that gets you "high", is basically completely non-toxic. You can have as much of it as you want. It's less toxic that most of the stuff you'll eat on a daily basis.

If this were scaled up to an adult human, the lethal dose would be between approximately 50 and 86 g for a 68 kg (150 lb) person. This would be equivalent to 1-1.8 kg of marijuana with a 5% THC content (roughly average) taken orally (much more if smoked). It is important to note, however, that toxicity studies in animal models do not necessarily correlate to human toxicity. THC receptor distribution in the rat CNS is different than that of humans, meaning that there is the significant possibility that toxicity in humans varies from the published animal LD50 studies. There has never been a documented fatality from marijuana or THC overdose.
Studies of the distribution of the cannabinoid receptors in the brain explain why THC's toxicity is so low (i.e., the LD50 of the compound is so large): parts of the brain that control vital functions such as respiration do not have many receptors, so they are relatively unaffected even by doses larger than could ever be ingested under any normal conditions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahy...binol#Toxicity

The only bad thing about smoking marijuana is, as some have said, the carcinogenic **** in the smoke. Even that, however, isn't all that bad. The chance of you getting cancer from smoking it is relatively low, simply because one does not smoke as much marijuana as one would smoke cigarettes. (Edit: Actually it seems there's no evidence at all that it causes cancer. In fact there's evidence it helps prevent it; look at my post below for the relevant article.)

jamil5454: The chlorine + arsenic thing is bullshit. It'd be very easy to detect because of the smell, and the arsenic would kill you.

This thread has veered wayyy off-topic, but I will try to reply to some of the replies made to my statements later, as soon as I'm done with this chemistry exam...

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Compare mass consumption of alcohol to mass consumption of pot, and pot beats alcohol hands down across the board.

From what I know of the long term effects of alcohol and pot consumption, this is not true.
Both will do damage to your body and mind, in different ways but no less destructive.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

From what I know of the long term effects of alcohol and pot consumption, this is not true.
Both will do damage to your body and mind, in different ways but no less destructive.

Wrong, read my post.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Wrong, read my post.

You're ignoring the mental health issues suffered by long term marijuana users.
Paranoia, impaired memory, social and motor skills to name just a few.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

You're ignoring the mental health issues suffered by long term marijuana users.
Paranoia, impaired memory, social and motor skills to name just a few.

Again, wrong. Stop spreading FUD.

There is little conclusive scientific evidence about the long-term effects of human cannabis consumption. The findings of many earlier studies purporting to demonstrate the effects of the drug are unreliable and generally regarded as junk science, as the studies were flawed, with strong bias and poor methodology.

Some conclusions established with some degree of certainty, however, are that cannabis is less likely to cause emphysema or cancer than tobacco

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#List_of_effects

Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis.

A recent study [27] on a much larger population sample (about 1200), however, not only failed to establish a cancer risk, but showed a slight negative correlation between long-term cannabis use and lung cancers, suggesting a possible theraputic effect. This followed an even larger 1997 study [28] examing the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients, and concluding no correlation between cannabis use and cancer. It has been noted, separately, that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchia, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors. [29] Yet another study failed to establish a link between cannabis use and oral cancer. [30]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._mental_health

There is basically no strong evidence that it causes permanent mental health damage. It's really safe, and only dangerous in the most extreme situations. Marijuana has not killed _anyone_ directly. Water kills more people, and the legal substances known as alcohol and tobacco, certainly kill far more. Heh, let me put it this way, marijuana has killed 0 people directly, and probably a minute amount indirectly.

Listen closely: Marijuana is VERY safe.

Try doing some research before posting next time.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

OK, let's make this perfectly clear, the chemical known as THC, the thing in pot that gets you "high", is basically completely non-toxic. You can have as much of it as you want. It's less toxic that most of the stuff you'll eat on a daily basis.


The only bad thing about smoking marijuana is, as some have said, the carcinogenic **** in the smoke. Even that, however, isn't all that bad. The chance of you getting cancer from smoking it is relatively low, simply because one does not smoke as much marijuana as one would smoke cigarettes.

A substance can be dangerous for you without killing you. I'll give you a hint. Read my post again.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Listen closely: Marijuana is VERY safe.

That people still believe this myth is amazing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

A substance can be dangerous for you without killing you. I'll give you a hint. Read my post again.

Your post said nothing.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

That people still believe this myth is amazing.

It's called "scientific evidence".

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Your post said nothing.

I meant this post:

"Wrong.

And before you go off on a rant I suggest you work at a mental detox facility for a while. Just to see how "good" pot is."

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

It's called "scientific evidence".

There is no scientific evidence that shows Mary J to be harmless.

Again, work at a mental detox facility before making such claims.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Again, wrong. Stop spreading FUD.

Maybe you should quote the entire article. Emphasis is mine.

List of effects:

Anti-emetic properties
Modulation of working and short-term memory
Impairment of short-term memory in some users This has been shown to be non reversible in some long term users
Enhancement of many other drug effects (including those of alcohol, ecstasy, tobacco, heroin, cocaine)
Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users
Paramnesia, repetitiveness and ambiguation
Increased appetite (often referred to as "the munchies"), an effect of stimulation of the endocannabinoid system, which affects body weight, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. This can make users more susceptible to a range of illnesses, from diabetes to cancer. In addition, long term cannabis use can weaken the immune system.
Induced sense of novelty
Increased or decreased sexual pleasure
Increased awareness of sensation
Increased awareness of patterns and colors
Increased appreciation of music and other arts
Increased mental activity, like metacognition
Initial wakefulness followed by drowsiness and lassitude ('burnt out')
Introspective or meditative states of mind
Gain or loss of some inhibitions
Mild euphoria, feelings of general well-being
Relaxation or stress reduction
Mild tachycardia (Increased heart rate) Cannabis smokers have a four fold risk off a heart attack in the 2 hours following the ingestion of the drug.
Mild, temporary dry mouth (sometimes referred to as cottonmouth, pasties, or the drys (NZ))
Mild, temporary keratoconjunctivitis sicca (sometimes referred to as blood-shot eyes, dry eyes or red eye(UK))
Varying amounts of paranoia and anxiety in some users This has been shown to be non reversible in some long term users

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There is no scientific evidence that shows Mary J to be harmless.

Is that why the the AMA lobbied Congress to keep it legal? It was prescribed for well more than 100 different illnesses and was repeated declared a miracle drug. Of course, there isn't much recent evidence because the big pharmaceutical companies are so scared of legal pot that they lobbied Congress to outlaw using pot in tests. Why would they have so much interest in doing that? Surely they weren't spending any money on beating down something that's so bad for you.

Again, work at a mental detox facility before making such claims.

I made a comparison to alcohol. Alcohol is far and away more addictive than pot.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I meant this post:

"Wrong.

And before you go off on a rant I suggest you work at a mental detox facility for a while. Just to see how "good" pot is."

Yes, I'm aware. Again, that says absolutely nothing. If you expect me to apply for a job at a mental detox facility to understand the vague concept you're trying to get across then I'll have to introduce you to my Kenyan friend with $1,000,000 who's very interested in doing business with you.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There is no scientific evidence that shows Mary J to be harmless.

Yes, there is. See my above posts, and try searching Pubmed and Google while you're at it. In addition to that, there's certainly no evidence that shows the contrary, even though they have tried to do so many times.

Again, work at a mental detox facility before making such claims.

He's a really nice guy, he just needs your bank account number, your social security number, your mother's maiden name, as well as your first-born child and he'll have that money wired over to you as quickly as possible.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Maybe you should quote the entire article. Emphasis is mine.

List of effects:

(removed for brevity - see above post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...ol_on_the_body

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Is that why the the AMA lobbied Congress to keep it legal? It was prescribed for well more than 100 different illnesses and was repeated declared a miracle drug. Of course, there isn't much recent evidence because the big pharmaceutical companies are so scared of legal pot that they lobbied Congress to outlaw using pot in tests. Why would they have so much interest in doing that? Surely they weren't spending any money on beating down something that's so bad for you.

If pot was a miracle drug the pharma companies would be lobbying for making it legal. Just so they can get to selling it.

I made a comparison to alcohol. Alcohol is far and away more addictive than pot.

Complete and utter BS.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Yes, I'm aware. Again, that says absolutely nothing. If you expect me to apply for a job at a mental detox facility to understand the vague concept you're trying to get across then I'll have to introduce you to my Kenyan friend with $1,000,000 who's very interested in doing business with you.

There's no vague concept. It's pretty clear what Mary J does.

Yes, there is. See my above posts, and try searching Pubmed and Google while you're at it. In addition to that, there's certainly no evidence that shows the contrary, even though they have tried to do so many times.

Google is not a source for "science". And if the articles on Pubmed show you that Mary J is harmless then you don't know how to search on it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Maybe you should quote the entire article. Emphasis is mine.

List of effects:

[cut]

Where the f*ck did you get that "non reversible" stuff??? It's certainly not in the articles I linked.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There's no vague concept. It's pretty clear what Mary J does.

Hello? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what that actually is.

Google is not a source for "science". And if the articles on Pubmed show you that Mary J is harmless then you don't know how to search on it.

Google will give you links to real, valid research. How is real, valid research not real, valid research? My statements are all backed by research, you can check the references at the bottom of the wiki articles if you don't believe me.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Where the f*ck did you get that "non reversible" stuff??? It's certainly not in the articles I linked.

Read my post: Emphasis is mine.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Read my post: Emphasis is mine.

And here I was thinking you had found some ground-breaking research. Sorry for taking you seriously Mastrap, it won't happen again I promise.

[aristotles]

lpkmckenna, the people that started the Reform party were disaffected PCs. That is a fact. No amount of revisionist history will change that fact.

Whether or not the PC party was still technically alive is irrelevant. Outside of a few riddings they were irrelevant to the electorate before the merger.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Complete and utter BS.

Von you are simply wrong. Alchohol is more addictive than pot. And it is more dangerous.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Hello? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what that actually is.

OK, I'll spell it out for you (just the basics though since you won't believe anything I say)

Might be some big words in here so just ask if you don't understand what they mean:

MaryJ addicts show a similar comorbid anxiety and affective disorders as cocaine users: 1.

MaryJ addicts have higher percentage of individuals endorsing withdrawal symptoms than cocaine addicts: same as above.

Endocannabinoids inhibit the release of leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) from peripheral T lymphocytes: 2.

Cannabinoids alter immune function and decrease host resistance to microbial infections. 3.

Attention and memory deficits have been reported in heavy marijuana users: 4.

Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs: 5.

Drug-induced AMI secondary to CAS in teenagers is related to marijuana. Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute MI and ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation by inducing CAS. Those complications have been encountered in both young male and female patients after marijuana smoking, and the majority of those patients had either normal coronary arteries or minimal coronary irregularities. Marijuana affects coronary microcirculation, decreases coronary flow, and enhances ruptured coronary plaque with a thrombus formation: 6.

I'll let this do for now. Just follow the references in those articles for more.

Google will give you links to real, valid research, how is real, valid research not real, valid research? My statements are all backed by research, you can check the references at the bottom of the wiki articles if you don't believe me.

I'd love to see the response you would get if you'd cite a link found in google in an attempt to get an article published in a peer-reviewed paper.

[itistoday]

Yeah... von Wrangell, does your opinion on this matter represent the majority opinion of the Icelandic population? Because if so I don't think I'd want to move there...

Edit: oo you responded... one sec.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by aristotles

lpkmckenna, the people that started the Reform party were disaffected PCs. That is a fact. No amount of revisionist history will change that fact.

Read my post. That's exactly what I said.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

MaryJ addicts show a similar comorbid anxiety and affective disorders as cocaine users: 1.

MaryJ addicts have higher percentage of individuals endorsing withdrawal symptoms than cocaine addicts: same as above.

Oh no! Maybe they shouldn't have been so stupid, it's really difficult to become dependent on marijuana, and as this article states, even when you manage to smoke enough to become dependent.

In the United States, Marinol [THC] is a Schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence.

Even the bigoted US government admits it's a low risk for dependence.
Another quote from Wiki:

Animal research has shown that the potential for cannabinoid psychological dependence does exist, and includes mild withdrawal symptoms. Although not as severe as that for alcohol, heroin, or cocaine dependence, marijuana withdrawal is usually characterized by insomnia, restlessness, loss of appetite, irritability, anger, increased muscle activity (jerkiness), and aggression after sudden cessation of chronic use as a result of physiological tolerance.

Not too shabby, I feel sorry for the dog they tested this on.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Endocannabinoids inhibit the release of leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) from peripheral T lymphocytes: 2.

Sorry, this doesn't tell me much, and I couldn't get to the actual article. Even if this does mean that it has some negative effect, it doesn't seem like it's implying it's permanent or life-threatening. Certainly nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Cannabinoids alter immune function and decrease host resistance to microbial infections. 3.

Uh huh, here's a quote from a few sentences down in the abstract of that article:

While marijuana and various cannabinoids have been documented to alter immune functions in vitro and in experimental animals, no controlled longitudinal epidemiological studies have yet definitively correlated immunosuppressive effects with increased incidence of infections or immune disorders in humans.

In addition to this, I remember reading in those wiki articles that I linked to above that if there is any sort of negative impact on the immune system, it's transitory and small.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Attention and memory deficits have been reported in heavy marijuana users: 4.

Hahaha!

Did you just stop reading once you read that?? You didn't even finish quoting the entire sentence!

Here, I'll do it for you:

Attention and memory deficits have been reported in heavy marijuana users, but these effects may be reversible after prolonged abstinence. It remains unclear whether the reversibility of these cognitive deficits indicates that chronic marijuana use does not alter cortical networks, or that such changes occur but the brain adapts to the drug-induced changes.

Basically, that says: "All we know is that while you're high your memory and attention is impaired, but we have no evidence to indicate it's permanent".

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Regular or heavy cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of using other illicit drugs, abusing or becoming dependent upon other illicit drugs, and using a wider variety of other illicit drugs: 5.

I won't even look at this because it proves nothing about marijuana's health consequences. How silly you even choose to include this, the very fact you do shows how hard-pressed you are to come up with any sort of decent research.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Drug-induced AMI secondary to CAS in teenagers is related to marijuana. Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute MI and ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation by inducing CAS. Those complications have been encountered in both young male and female patients after marijuana smoking, and the majority of those patients had either normal coronary arteries or minimal coronary irregularities. Marijuana affects coronary microcirculation, decreases coronary flow, and enhances ruptured coronary plaque with a thrombus formation: 6.

This article is actually not real research, but rather this person's interpretation of 220 articles concerning heart attacks and similar cardiovascular problems. Of these 220 articles only 50 were found to concern illicit drugs, about 12 of them to be precise. Now, the discussion is obviously regarding marijuana, and thus you quote that section. We're now down to this guy's interpretation of 2 articles (references 8 and 67), and what do they tell him?

Smoking marijuana is a rare trigger of acute MI and ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation by inducing CAS

Right. So what you've shown me here is that this guy has read these articles and has found that smoking marijuana puts you at little risk for heart attack! Hah, you sure have shown me up. How about picking a better reference next time, perhaps some real, verified research with numbers instead of vague statements.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'd love to see the response you would get if you'd cite a link found in google in an attempt to get an article published in a peer-reviewed paper.

It happens all the time. Maybe that's because google will link you to articles published to Pubmed and various other places, including prestigious journals like Science and Nature. Seriously, wtf are you talking about here??? Google doesn't do research on marijuana, it archives the internet!

In summary: As I suspected, you don't really have any clue as to what you're talking about. You seemingly quickly grabbed a few links and didn't read enough into them. You haven't shown enough evidence that smoking marijuana socially in moderation has any significant negative impact on one's health. It's quite obvious to me from various articles, wikipedia, and your own links that smoking marijuana in moderation is safe, and in fact safer than eating a biggie-fries at McDonald's. In some instances it's actually healthy.

That was your last shot buddy, I've really got to study for my chem exam, so don't expect me do your research for you, waste my time reading things for you, or to pay anymore serious attention to your unsubstantiated ramblings.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by itistoday

confused ramblings

All you've posted so far are your personal opinions, backed up by a selectively quoted Wikipedia article. Nice going Maurice.

[itistoday]

Itistoday's final word on the matter:

My fellow Americans, today we have witnessed a tragic display of stupidity. We must remain vigilant in these times of troubles, and make sure that those OBGYNs can practice their love on marijuana.

The following statement is factual, to argue with it is to admit that you are an idiot:

The illegal Schedule I drug known as Marijuana is far safer, and less addictive than the legal drugs that go by the names of "cigarettes" and "alcohol".

[Mastrap]

I thought you were off studying. Problems concentrating?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Oh no! Maybe they shouldn't have been so stupid, it's really difficult to become dependent on marijuana, and as this article states, even when you manage to smoke enough to become dependent.

Even the bigoted US government admits it's a low risk for dependence.
Another quote from Wiki:

Not too shabby, I feel sorry for the dog they tested this on.

"The risk of developing dependence is approximately one in 10 for those who have ever used cannabis [15] and perhaps as high as one in two for daily users [20]"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Sorry, this doesn't tell me much, and I couldn't get to the actual article. Even if this does mean that it has some negative effect, it doesn't seem like it's implying it's permanent or life-threatening. Certainly nothing to worry about.

Ever heard of Leukaemia? If you do you would have a slight idea of what LIF does. If you still don't think it would be permanent or life-threatening I suggest you drop out of school and start working at a gas station pumping gas.

" LIF has a wide array of actions, including acting as a stimulus for platelet formation, proliferation of some hematopoietic cells, bone formation, adipocyte lipid transport, adrenocorticotropic hormone production, neuronal survival and formation, muscle satellite cell proliferation, and acute phase production by hepatocytes"

http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/c...nt/full/21/1/5

Inhibiting that sure sounds like a great idea.

Uh huh, here's a quote from a few sentences down in the abstract of that article:

In addition to this, I remember reading in those wiki articles that I linked to above that if there is any sort of negative impact on the immune system, it's transitory and small.

You said it was safe. A substance that fecks up your immune system (as that article points out) is not safe. If you really think so look at the advise I gave you above.

Hahaha!

Did you just stop reading once you read that?? You didn't even finish quoting the entire sentence!

Here, I'll do it for you:

Basically, that says: "All we know is that while you're high your memory and attention is impaired, but we have no evidence to indicate it's permanent".

No, they aren't checking the subject under influence.

I won't even look at this because it proves nothing about marijuana's health consequences. How silly you even choose to include this, the very fact you do shows how hard-pressed you are to come up with any sort of decent research.

If smoking Marijuana makes you more likely to start doing smack you can see what health consequences it has.

This article is actually not real research, but rather this person's interpretation of 220 articles concerning heart attacks and similar cardiovascular problems. Of these 220 articles only 50 were found to concern illicit drugs, about 12 of them to be precise. Now, the discussion is obviously regarding marijuana, and thus you quote that section. We're now down to this guy's interpretation of 2 articles (references 8 and 67), and what do they tell him?

Right. So what you've shown me here is that this guy has read these articles and has found that smoking marijuana puts you at little risk for heart attack! Hah, you sure have shown me up. How about picking a better reference next time, perhaps some real, verified research with numbers instead of vague statements.

I suggest you ask your professors what a "review article" is.

Something that increases your risk of heart attack is not safe.

The risk of myocardial infarction onset was elevated 4.8 times over baseline (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 9.5) in the 60 minutes after marijuana use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

In summary: As I suspected, you don't really have any clue as to what you're talking about. You seemingly quickly grabbed a few links and didn't read enough into them. You haven't shown enough evidence that smoking marijuana socially in moderation has any significant negative impact on one's health. It's quite obvious to me from various articles, wikipedia, and your own links that smoking marijuana in moderation is safe, and in fact safer than eating a biggie-fries at McDonald's. In some instances it's actually healthy.

Love that disclaimer you guys always put in "Socially in moderation". Something that increases your risk of heart attack and something that is addictive and all the other things shows in the few articles I showed you is not safe. Time for you to drop out of school and start working on that gas station.

That was your last shot buddy, I've really got to study for my chem exam, so don't expect me do your research for you, waste my time reading things for you, or to pay anymore serious attention to your unsubstantiated ramblings.

You sure seem to think stating that you are studying chemistry is something that gives you some credibility. Perhaps it would work if I was still stuck in school. Unfortunately for you that's not the case.

My advice to you is two-fold. Learn how to read scientific articles or drop out of school and start doing something that doesn't require thinking.

But I've spent enough time on you. You're just yet one more adolescent who has fallen for the myth of "Marijuana isn't bad for you". You'll grow out of it in the future.

[ghporter]

von Wrangell, I think you're talking WAY over this guy's head. His mind's made up so facts won't sway him.

Taking chemistry in college didn't give me a lick of credibility. It gave me some long days and short nights, and an appreciation of how people can screw up in a lab, but not credibility. Learning about research, and about how to interpret it (a nice engineering-level stats class is good for that) gives one tools to understand what one learns. The rest is use (or failure to use) of common sense and logic. See my first statement for further discussion.