Prove to me that marijuana is bad for you.

[devilgrrl]

Because I don't think it is bad for you. It may not be for everyone but I know of no one that was adversely effected by it or do I know of anyone that moved onto harder drugs after using marijuana. So prove to me that it's bad and that it should stay illegal as result.

In the meantime, would anyone like a bong hit?

:smoke:

[zabet]

1. Pass it to me!

:smoke:

edit to add: The only
bad thing about is when
I don't have any.

[Hydra]

2. I'm allergic to smoke

got some in another form? :evilgrin:

Really, pot had to go so there wouldn't be hemp oil gasoline and hemp rope. Big oil got an early start.

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. Bingo! nt

[montanto]

114. Yeah

Here in SoCal you walk into the "doctor's" office, tell them your back hurts and they give you a MediMar card. Go to the store, buy weed lollipops, weed cookies, weed brownies, etc!! No smoke, same effect!

[Hydra]

269. What a cool idea

Lollies aren't just for kids and seductive women, anymore :evilgrin:

[notadmblnd]

271. thye also thought that by making it illegal

it would keep the influx of our South of our border friends to a minimum.

[DJ13]

3. Well I used to smoke it all the...........

..........ugh.......er......what was the question?

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I'm afraid I can't help you out there...

I've been smoking it for over 40 years and I'm in peak health, don't even have a family doctor, and I feel like I'm about 25. I just don't see any downsides, especially since it's not illegal here in Alaska and hasn't been for over 30 years. (Another reason why I love Alaska.)

[tekisui]

7. How "not illegal" is it up there?

[Blue_In_AK]

10. You can have an ounce in your home

or up to 25 plants for personal use. The area between one and four ounces is in dispute right now. For a while that was considered legal according to our Supreme Court, but then some idiots in the legislature tried to make it illegal. That's been appealed, so it's kind of a gray area now -- no more than a misdemeanor in any event.

The seminal case here is Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), which ruled that the Alaska constitution's very strong privacy clause protected marijuana use in one's home. You can read it here http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravin.htm. I have worked for both plaintiff's lawyers in this case in the past. :)

[tekisui]

18. Alaska sounds better and better.

In 10-20 years, it'll probably nice and warm there.

I'll see you, future neighbor!

:hi: :smoke:

[Blue_In_AK]

22. The weather's not bad even now

especially down here in Anchorage where I live. Today it's 22 and clear, although it's been in the upper 30s and lower 40s the past couple of days. Another thing I like here is that we have no death penalty, and abortions are still available, not to mention that the state gives each of us money every year out of the oil royalties. This past year every man, woman and child who's lived here at least a year got a check for $1,654. Now, they're even talking about giving everybody another check for $1,000 for fuel costs since the state made so much money from oil taxes this past year.

Anchorage is very diverse ethnically which I like ... our schools are 50 percent minority now, with 98 different spoken languages.

PLUS this is one of the most beautiful places on earth, and there aren't millions of people. In fact, there isn't even a million for an area 1/5 the size of the rest of the US.

So there's plenty of room for you. I'll look forward to seeing you. :)

[Beausoleil]

72. I love Alaska

Lived there for 6 years. Anchorage is a great place to live!

I knew a lot of people in Alaska that moved there from Minnesota and Wisconsin to escape the harsh winters.

[KalicoKitty]

100. LOL! n/m

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tekisui]

5. inhale....hold....ahhhh.

It's not bad for you.

Smoke the sacred herb, for the health of your heart and mind.

[porphyrian]

6. I wouldn't prove it to you if I could because I want it legal.

And, yes, as soon as I get done eating.

[hootinholler]

23. Wrong order, eating naturally comes after. n/t

[porphyrian]

172. Which brings you down and is a less efficient use of a precious resource.

:evilgrin:

[hootinholler]

228. Ah yes, the death spiral.

:rofl:

But man it makes it taste sooo good.

-Hoot

[durrrty libby]

8. If you don't think sucking stuff into your lungs is not good for you

then party on

[devilgrrl]

9. interesting that you should bring that up. Are you aware that pot doesn't cause lung cancer?

I didn't think so. :hi:

[JuniperLea]

14. It actually helps some people with asthma!

My ex went off inhalants altogether:)

[durrrty libby]

17. I didn't say it did. Too stoned to comprehend a simple inquiry?

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

21. Shame on you...

Not only is that not nice, but it doesn't really fit... did you read what you posted first? How is it not good for you?

[devilgrrl]

30. Then what do you mean?

It certainly wasn't complimentary whatever it was...


stoner.

[durrrty libby]

56. I meant what I said.

"If you don't think sucking stuff into your lungs is not good for you

then party on"

Simple, isn't it?

[JNelson6563]

273. Are you ever NOT a miserable wretch?

:shrug:

[wildbilln864]

76. Pot fights all cancers!

That's a very big reason it's illegal! linky :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

43. Yes, breathing leads to death in 100% of all cases nt

[Kucinich4America]

45. Well, if that's how you feel....

....There's always brownies.

Or the vaporizer, for that matter.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8614899774072010423

[dysfunctional press]

96. i don't, so i will.

nt

[wintersoulja]

11. ruined my life.

Thank God!

[Mojambo]

12. It's not a gateway drug or anything, but it can be very bad for some people

People with avoidant issues (like myself) should be very careful with it. It will aid greatly in the complete shut down of your life.

For the great majority of people I think it's completely harmless though.

[JuniperLea]

13. Sure! But purely for research, you understand!

[MisterHowdy]

15. For me, smoking marijuana brings on bad anxiety attacks.

I'm not saying that marijuana gives people anxiety,
I've always had anxiety issues, far before i ever smoked pot.
But it triggers nasty anxiety attacks, it sucks.
So, for me, marijuana is quite harmful.

I bet I'm not the only one that has had anxiety attacks after smoking pot.


I wish I could still smoke it though : (

[bigwillq]

20. That happened to me too.

I smoked for years....quite heavily at times too...but then every time I smoked I got bad panic attacks so I had to stop. Haven't smoked it in like five years.

[JuniperLea]

24. Not everyone can take aspirin either...

Bummer though! We used to call that "the perries" back in the day... short for paranoia. Yeah, that's common, but I was always able to talk myself down from them and enjoy the ride:)

[Oeditpus Rex]

29. Same here

Not every time, but enough to make me say, "Okay, maybe this isn't a good idea."

But that's me. I still support legalization one hundred percent because:

• eradication programs cost millions that would be much better spent elsewhere;

• the U.S. prison problem is largely the result of the number of "marijuana offenders" incarcerated;

• the taxes from state-sanctioned marijuana sales would be of great benefit;

• the laws against it are based on racism and fear;

• millions of people enjoy and use it responsibly.

[Le Taz Hot]

260. My husband is A.D.D. and it makes him

paranoid. As in, for DAYS afterwards. Personally, it helps me focus. Contrary to popular belief, I can actually get MORE done under the influence. Something about just really getting into something whether playing the guitar or cleaning the oven. :shrug:

[New Earth]

279. It kinda does the same for me

it didn't used to though. In high school it was the best, I would just have the giggles and bug out on stuff. But the last....about 10 years or so, all it does is make me paranoid :( I think whoever I'm with hates me. I start thinking of the most horrible things that could happen. Ugh...I can't stand it.

Somtimes I DO like it though, after I'm already a little drunk, just smoking a little bit makes me feel better, no nausea or anything, and I feel less drunk...also, I smoked it for about a week or two last year when my lower back/sciatica pain was out of control. It really helped relax my back and made the pain go away for a bit!

If I could smoke weed and just listen to music the whole time, I'd be fine. That's definately my favorite thing to do in that state :)

[killbotfactory]

16. It's bad for your lungs

But not as bad as cigarettes. That's about it, and it's not nearly a good enough reason to keep it banned and to throw people in jail over it.

[JuniperLea]

25. Got link?

I've never found one study that says its bad for the lungs, but have known people with asthma who stopped using their inhalers because the bong worked far better.

[bigwillq]

27. Link

http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams_behavioral_healt/2005/01/marijuana_as_ba.html

[devilgrrl]

31. The findings were based on 6,728 questionnaires completed by adult men and women, 20 to 59 years old

in 1988 and 1994.

That must mean that it's true!

[onenote]

33. and you have some evidence to counter this study?

I'm not sure what your post is supposed to mean in terms of debunking this study.

Personally, I think pot should be decriminalized. However, I'm not sure I would support it being sold and used willy-nilly. I don't think its appropriate for children to use and while I'm guilty of having done so quite a bit back in the day, driving while stoned isn't necessarily something I'd like to see more of either.

But should it be flatly illegal, even if it can be harmful to one's lungs? No.

[devilgrrl]

36. Sure... here.

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/nocancer.php

Cannabis does not cause cancer, lung disease, or ill health. Recent reports confirm this.
CANNABIS AND CANCER

Go back to the contents page

CANADA: Pot Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer, Researcher Says: Toronto Star, 12 June 2001

New 126-Page Study, 'NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans-Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies': February 1999 from AIDSNEWS

BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI) - The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994 study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher says the study found absolutely no evidence of cancer. In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was due to a personnel shortage.

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday 30th January 1997 that the study indicates not only that the main ingredient in marijuana, THC, does not cause cancer, but also that it may even protect against malignancies, laboratory tests on animals show.

The report comes on the heels of an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine that favors the controlled medical use of marijuana, and calls current federal policy misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane.

SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER

The KAISER PERMANENTE. Prohibition is unhealthy. 1997

Kaiser-Permanente is a large US health-care provider. This study into the effects of long-term smoking of cannabis took 10 years and involved 65,000 people who had received check-ups between 1979 and 1985. The patients were divided into those who had, and those who had not, used cannabis regularly or currently. It was reported that risks associated with cannabis smoking were lower than for tobacco smoking. It also noted that smokers with AIDS had no higher death-rate than non-smokers with AIDS.

The report stated
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".

See also: Radioactivity in Tobacco
UCLA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.
Researchers said:

"Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of "
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997
NATIONAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESEARCH CENTRE, AUSTRALIA, January 1997


A study of 268 cannabis smokers who, on average, had smoked for 19 years and 31 non-using partners and family members, concluded that the health of the long-term smokers is virtually no different to that of the general population.

Chief researcher Richard Reilly said "The results seem unremarkable...The exceptional thing was that the respondents were unexceptional."
For more information e-mail Jamnes Danenberg

Source: New Scientist (UK)
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Redford Givens

DOPE VERSUS CANCER

Michael Roth's "preliminary evidence" suggesting that the THC in marijuana may promote a carcinogenic effect (This week, 25 July, p 16) flies in the face of Louis S. Harris's findings in Analgesic and Anti-Tumor Potential of The Cannabinoids (Medical College of Virginia, 1972) that delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC and cannabinol are quite active as anticancer agents.

At the time of Harris's research, no anticancer agent that was much more potent than delta-9 THC existed and no compounds differentiated between tumour and normal cells the way delta-9 THC does. Considering that delta-9 THC alone increased survival in cancerous rats by 36 per cent, it seems very unlikely that THC promotes carcinogenic effects.

THC's known anticarcinogenic properties are probably the reason the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, has never been able to trace any cancers to marijuana use.

Redford Givens San Francisco

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)

[onenote]

41. the study you criticized never claimed pot caused cancer

and the study that claims that pot users had no decline in repiratory function compared to non users had only 300 participants (268 users and 31 non users), which seems open to at least as much criticism as the study you knocked in your post.

Again, my point isn't that pot should be illegal. Its just that, like many things that aren't necessarily always good for you, it shouldn't be illegal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Have you got anything that says THC is bad for you?

Because I never see in any thread about BBQ some guy chiming in about how BBQ smoke causes cancer. The whole "but smoke causes cancer" thing strikes me as a red herring, and intellectually dishonest.

[TroglodyteScholar]

280. There's a lot more than just THC in marijuana...

...I think people who claim it's in no way bad for you are lying to themselves and to others.

No, I'm not a scientist, but I can tell you that it's very heavy smoke that at least makes ME cough up all kinds of nasty junk. I can only assume that the nasty junk that remains is probably not good for me.

Just because you love the weed doesn't mean you should condescend to people who are legitimately concerned about its health implications. You don't have any science that's better than anyone else's.

Talk about intellectually dishonest.....

[Occulus]

87. You can debunk it based on the self-reporting issue

If it was just people filling out questionnaires, that isn't even research. It's a bunch of people filling out a survey.

Sorry to the person who posted it, but that just doesn't count.

[bigwillq]

35. A more recent link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085550.htm


I use to smoke a lot and I believe weed should be legal but there is scientific proof that smoking weed can be hazardous to your health.

[wildbilln864]

78. and proof it's good for you...

linky :hi:

[JeanGrey]

272. These guys are wrong. Check this out. Pot not only

doesn't cause lung cancer it might prevent it:

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

[EOTE]

74. Some anecdotal evidence to back that up.

I was athsmatic as a child and I'd get bronchitis every year. It typically would stay for an entire miserable week. Once I started smoking bud, I haven't had to suffer through bronchitis at all. I'd get a tickle in my throat every now and then, but after a few toke, I'd be able to cough up the phlegm and I'd be good to go. For this reason alone, it should be readily available everywhere. Sure, it can be bad for some people, and some people can do some stupid things under its influence. But if that were the criteria for making something illegal, not a whole lot would be legal in this country.

[killbotfactory]

93. Anytime you put smoke in your lungs it's bad for them

I notice it after a few days of smoking.

It's not that bad, but it's a downside.

[peacebuzzard]

274. I think any particle you inhale is a possible contaminant for your lungs

not to mention it deposits tartar on your teeth. However, if you could get around the deposits on your lungs and teeth thing .... such as consuming it via alternate means; or filtered to where the deposits are rendered harmless, I then believe the liver would have to process the molecules. So far, I have not heard of liver damage due to pot. I would be interested in knowing that, though......

As far as my ideas on the above go....there are other pollutants we are subjected to on the eastern seaboard/industrialized society that we have to deal with on a daily basis and these pollutants do far more harm than an occasional toke.

on edit And I am 100% in favor of the decriminalization of pot. The laws concerning marijuana in this country are so archaic .... Alcohol is a far more damaging recreational drug; whereas marijuana has many, many medicinal properties for chronic illnesses.

[johnaries]

19. It can lead to obesity.

:evilgrin:

[sniffa]

60. and man-tits

I actually had a doctor explode on me with rage, and told me that I'm going to grow tits.

[FreeState]

239. Mercer has pot tits?!??! wow :) n/t

[hootinholler]

26. If you are in say Texas and have a small amount...

If a cop should find it it will be bad for you. Other than that, nothing.

What did I win?

-Hoot

[tekisui]

38. One giant nug.

[BB1]

28. Netherlands checking in.

Just to be part of the company! Smoking and watching an amateur poker player tearing up the pro's.

ForTheSmoke!

[EOTE]

147. You lucky bastard.

Ever head to 'The Grey Area'?

[BB1]

194. Enough 'grey areas' in Holland. Which one do you

specifically mean?

And as for being a lucky bastard... Aren't you glad you live in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Or, as another DUer put it: The land of the Wee and the home of the Knaves. Or so.

To tell you even worse: I smoke about 160 euros of pot/month. It's all legally bought (although not legally grown and wholesold). My parents don't worry about it at all - they've seen what I've done to my life in 31 years - more than they have combined. They are proud of me.

My employers don't object at all. I do some stuff for a traffic safety group, they know I drive around with a joint in my hand. "Just don't get caught,' is all I hear.

And then for the side effects. Nausea, bloodproblems, exaggerated aggression, concentration problems, reduced body reflexes, oh no wait - that's alcohol!

The only great disadvantage I can think of is this: You fall asleep while trying to read. Which is better than not read at all.

So what's that about the grey area? Is it a coffeshop?

[tom_paine]

248. "The Land of TV and the Home of the Virtual Slaves"

THAT is what our country has become.

[Journeyman]

32. THE DANGER OF MARIJUANA IS. . .

gettin' busted.





(Hat tip to A Child's Garden of Grass: A Prelegalization Comedy, 1971 or so)

[Irreverend IX]

34. Pot is a boring, shallow drug for boring, shallow people.

Hallucinogens are the only psychoactive substances worth using. Of course, I would never dream of doing anything illegal, so my opinions are based only on second-hand accounts.

But none of the aforementioned substances are "bad for you," as long as you use them with some modicum of responsibility.

[devilgrrl]

37. So cancer patients that use pot are shallow and boring?

If you insist.

[blogslut]

39. Nah, cocaine is for boring, shallow people

Or is it X? I can never decide which one has the most shallow users. ;)

[devilgrrl]

40. I always found Straight-Edgers to be boring and shallow.

In fact, I find it interesting that Straight-edgers don't need drugs or alcohol to be thuggish, violent assholes. How amazing is that?

[blogslut]

44. Oh, every group has its jerks

I've known some very lovely people who never do drugs or drink, yet they're as fun to hang out with as anyone. It all depends on the person. Some people are just assholes.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

156. In a nearby town, its a group of Straight Edgers who roll

around beating up people, esp. drug users.

Most of them are fuckwads, but I know a few cool ones.

[JVS]

275. .

:thumbsup:

[AlCzervik]

42. pot always made me giggle, when we were i high school we'd get high

at my house and do mad libs, sounds kind of stupid now but mad libs are pretty funny stuff when you're high.

[devilgrrl]

46. Mad Libs are hilarious in any state.

Now, give me a NOUN.

:smoke:

[AlCzervik]

48. i bought a bunch for my daughter last year and about once a week we get one of them out

and just howl with laughter, good times, good times!

[blogslut]

55. dude...wait, what?

;)

[BB1]

249. Try booze for shallow

[JVS]

276. Sitting around pontificating on which drugs are for boring, shallow people is for...

boring, shallow people.

Exciting, deep people get all fucked up on all the drugs and then decide which ones they have a personal distaste for.

[mdmc]

47. I don't think that it should be illegal, but it is bad to the bone

Good pot is potent. It is strong and powerful. Mess you up!

[7 of 11]

49. Here's your proof

Before POT



After POT

[AlCzervik]

53. I think that can be attibuted to heroiine.

[KG]

58. Richards is junkie, not a stoner.

but, he is a Stone. heh.

[SOS]

77. No proof at all

Keith Richards is a dedicated family man, married 25 years, treated his father well, has great kids, works hard and at age 64 can still do a one-armed push-up.
In 2008, he is a poor anti-drug argument.

Keith and his daughter at "Pirates" premiere last year.

[emilyg]

50. Prove to me that it's good for me.

[Writer]

51. Let me tell you the story about my sister in law.

She's a gifted soprano. Actually we NOW know she's a gifted soprano.

After she graduated from college with a music degree, she spent the following two years hanging around with her friends and getting high. She could barely keep an adequate job. She sometimes didn't make her rent.

Eventually she moved to the east coast because she wanted to work on her singing. She continued to get high. She thought about graduate school for voice but she wasn't putting a lot of effort into seriously applying. Three years later, she was no farther than she was before, and was working at a job she hated.

She finally decided to lay off smoking pot. Two years later, she is now a graduate student at a prestigious music conservatory, is now getting paid for singing in operas and music productions, and has sung for the Kennedy Center choir and the National Cathedral choir.

Did she develop an addiction? No.

Did she permanently impair her thinking? Not really.

Will she get cancer or some other physical problem from her smoking? Likely not.

So I suppose the question here is, "How do you define 'bad?'" If the lack of motivation from routinely getting high is enough for you to stay away, I think that's something to consider.

Otherwise, smoke away.

~Writer~

[Karenina]

79. She needed to grow up first.

NO SERIOUS SINGER should be overexposed before 25. The voice gets better with age, experience and commitment. Do you lament her taking time to "find her center?" So you view it as "wasted time?" Why? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she has matured enough to handle that stanky bidness with grace, ease and HER TALENT. But that's just me channeling Justin Frank. ;-)

[Writer]

222. My sister in law parrots my remarks. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

52. If you take brain tissue samples from a pot user

And put them in a blender and liquify them at high speed - it'll show definite damage to the cell structure.

That's why I'll never touch the stuff again - until the next time I'm offered a toke.

[Dukkha]

54. ok i'll prove it...

umm...what was I proving again?...oh, man *giggles*
Got any Doritos?

[fascisthunter]

57. Why You Devil.......

:evilgrin:

[anarch]

61. this one time, I tripped over a marijuana plant, and totally scraped up my arm

there. proved.

[Prefer]

62. CHECK YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, FOOL...

See the damage?

[Froward69]

68. Actually

near my house is a community garden. the neocons consider it communist so they do not go in there at all. a few neighbors and I began growing... uh... HEMP there and split up the yield. three years now and that bag I got those seeds from cost $100. divided by 1095 days. = .09 cents a day and shrinking.

[Ganja Ninja]

80. Of course if it were legal it would be cheaper.

It would also bring in tax revenues and create jobs right here in the USA.

[shenmue]

63. Bob Marley died of cancer.

There you go.

As for people who don't think people on marijuana cause car accidents: have you ever heard of falling asleep at the wheel?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

65. Or reaching for that Oreo that fell next to the brake pedal

man, I'm staaaaaarrrrrvin'

[devilgrrl]

71. What a bunch of baseless bullshit

From wikipedia: While flying home from Germany to Jamaica for his final days, Marley became ill, and landed in Miami for immediate medical attention. He died at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami, Florida on the morning of May 11, 1981 at the age of 36. A tumor that began in his toe as a result of an injury during a soccer game, spread to his lungs and brain causing his death.

from http://geoffreyphilp.blogspot.com/2006/04/bob-marley-and-seven-chakras.html

How did Bob Marley die?
Death is not a part of the Rastafari vocabularly, so to honor that knowledge, I'll put it this way.
According to the Babylon system, Bob Marley died from cancer--malignant melanoma--that began in his right big toe and then spread through the rest of his body to include his brain, liver, lungs and stomach.
Contrary to many myths, Bob did not die from a drug overdose nor from smoking too much marijuana.
His transition is a part of his myth/legend: "It's a foolish dog that barks at a flying bird" (Jah Live)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. LOL

I saw we outlaw falling asleep.

[Alexander]

120. His cancer came from an untreated soccer injury.

Marley, being a Rasta, never saw a doctor after he injured his foot playing soccer. Rita Marley has said on many occasions that the cancer came from this and eventually grew to the point where it was too much to handle.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

155. Yea, cancer that started in his TOE.

[Hippo_Tron]

268. Lots of things impair your driving, some of them are legal others are not

I try to avoid all of them regardless of their legal status.

But it seems to me that the worst alcohol related car crashes occur because alcohol contributed to reckless driving. Marijuana may lead to impaired driving, but usually does not lead to reckless driving.

[aikoaiko]

64. I was going to write the best reply yet to your question...

...but I got high.

da-da da-la-la.

[ismnotwasm]

113. LOL

I love that song

[Bonobo]

66. It IS definitely damaging...

to pharmaceutical companies.

[Froward69]

73. and oil, and

alcohol, and cotton, and wool, and Chemical companies.

[Lorien]

67. My father used to be a regular pot smoker, and he's a doctor, BUT

another physician he knew was doing a study on the effects on marijuana on the brain. He had brain scans showing that just one joint could reduce activity in some areas of the brain for up to a week. I don't have any more specifics, but the brain scan that he showed to my father ended his 30 year pot habit THAT DAY. My dad still says that pot is better than most prescription drugs for pain management because the side effects are less severe, but he thinks that long term use can cause permanent brain impairment because the flow of oxygen to key areas of the brain is decreased (what helps in managing pain also decreases cognitive function). No links, just passing along what he told me.

[devilgrrl]

75. Thanks for sharing that.

Definitely food for thought. :-)

[skypilot]

95. ...reduce activity in some areas of the brain...

The very last time I smoked pot I think I felt that reduced activity--to say the very least. I was sitting on my bed thinking about something and suddenly whatever I was thinking about just flew right out of my head. Just mid-thought...POOF!!! I had no idea what I had JUST been thinking about. To this day I don't remember. It was a scary thing. I haven't smoked pot since. I didn't smoke it much before then because it would sometimes give me the anxiety attacks that other posters here have mentioned, but having a thought just vanish from my head as though someone had flicked a switch is not something that I want to experience ever again.

on edit: I was once at a party and the subject of pot came up. I recounted the experience that I just described and a couple people just laughed and said, "That happens to me ALL the time". That just reinforced my resolve to never touch the stuff again.

[montanto]

128. Happens to me all the time.

Thats why I smoke it!! I only smoke before bed, and all the crap thats in my head from the day, or all the BS that I shouldn't have to worry about until tomorrow just evaporates, just like you said.

[skypilot]

138. "...evaporates, just like you said."

Whatever I was thinking about didn't just evaporate, it VANISHED. For good. If it had been something that I needed to be thinking about or something that I needed to remember for the next day I'd be shit out of luck. I don't look on this as a benefit of any kind.

[madokie]

69. Just did that

the bowl thing

[High Plains]

70. It's easier to prove that the marijuana laws are bad for you.

[Javaman]

81. no idea, but what is the carcinogenic level of pot? I would thing that would be bad, no? nt

[wildbilln864]

229. Check this out....

linky :hi:

[ismnotwasm]

82. Nah

As a person who has considerable past experience with all kinds of substances, I don't think marijuana is precisely harmless, and not harmless at all for some, but I'll take a pothead over a drunk any day.

Seriously though, I'm a nurse and I have many patients who could benefit from--if not smoking pot, I'm kind of a protect your lungs type of person--then at least eating cookies, brownies. In fact recently one of my patients wives reminded me about cooking the pot in butter to preserve the THC content. (I had forgotten it's been so many years) Anyway, I can't tell you how many sick people could really use, and really want to use this drug in a beneficial way, and CAN'T or don't because the bullshit marijuana laws.

My husband, who has MS is one of them. The marinol you get it the US is useless. If medical marijuana was available in a potent form, it would help relieve many of his symptoms.

[montanto]

131. Too bad you aren't in Cal.

There's a shop less than a mile from my house!

[BoneDaddy]

83. It is simple

Anything can be addictive or used maladaptively. Even things that are supposed to be "good" for you. Food, work, sex, etc.

Some people can get high, be functional loving, productive people. Some people cannot. It is not the substance itself but the individual's relationship to that substance.

This argument is a personal one. I know people who get high all the time and it really has no adverse effects upon them. And I know people who cannot do it anymore as it came with some serious consequences.

Any thinking person can see that over time, smoking anything can have a negative effect upon your lungs but compared to alcohol or cigarettes, pot is rather tame.

I am talking about run of the mill marijuana, not anything that has been adulterated with any additional toxic substance such as boat or chronic.

[mzmolly]

85. I believe it is bad to inhale smoke of any kind. If you're open to the possibility that it IS bad

for the body/mind here is more info: http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/side-effects.htm

I've seen how marijuana effects people mentally/physically, I do believe that it's "bad for you." Though, I have no desire to "prove" it to anyone. ;)

[Medusa]

86. That's what I've heard

doesn't matter what you are smoking, it's going to damage your lungs. If you want to open yourself up to COPD, lung cancer, etc., be my guest. No high is worth that to me.

[mzmolly]

88. Not to mention stoking the fires of mental illness.

My Mom and step dad were "hippy" types who smoked daily, with their friends. I wish I could say I hadn't witnessed what Marijuana can do to people's brains, but I have. After what we (my sisters and I) witnessed - none of us smoke the crap. Odd way to rebel against the parents huh? My Mom finally quit about eight years ago. She hasn't seen the inside of a rubber room since. ;)

WELCOME!

[krkaufman]

89. I knew why, once, but... like... I've forgot.

[LogansPapa]

90. Pot isn’t any more harmful than beer.

Consume it, regularly, and you simply slow down. Not a big deal. You become less competitive. Less likely to compete with folks over 50, like me, in the job market. I’m fine with it, especially at my competitor’s facility - because that makes him less profitable and my shop more appealing to fix the customer’s components - because I and my employees all get screened every 30 days.

[bmbmd]

91. Here's what a real doctor said.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/marijuana/

From the Director
In the 1970s, the baby boom generation was coming of age, and its drug of choice was marijuana. By 1979, more than 60 percent of 12th-graders had tried marijuana at least once in their lives. From this peak, the percentage of 12th-graders who had ever used marijuana decreased for more than a decade, dropping to a low of 33 percent in 1992. However, in 1993, first-time marijuana use by 12th-graders was on the upswing, reaching 50 percent by 1997. Although the percentage of 12th-graders who have experience with marijuana has remained roughly level since then, there is still reason to be concerned.1 In 2002, an estimated 2.6 million Americans used marijuana for the first time. Roughly two-thirds of them were under age 18.2 Furthermore, the marijuana that is available today can be 5 times more potent than the marijuana of the 1970s.3

The use of marijuana can produce adverse physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and - contrary to popular belief - it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, can harm the lungs.4,5,6 The use of marijuana can impair short-term memory,7,8 verbal skills,9 and judgment10 and distort perception.11,12 It also may weaken the immune system13,14,15,16 and possibly increase a user's likelihood of developing cancer.14,17 Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very young teens may have a profoundly negative effect upon their development.9, 18, 19,20

We hope that this research report will help make readers aware of our current knowledge of marijuana abuse and its harmful effects.

Nora D. Volkow, M.D.
Director
National Institute on Drug Abuse

[dysfunctional press]

98. well...if a REAL government dr. said so...it MUST be true...

[bmbmd]

109. Alexander downstream quoted a Harvard study.

I offered a report from the United States government quoting seventy-five (seventy-five!) scholarly publications regarding hazards of marijuana smoke. The original poster asked from proof of harm-if seventy five scholarly peer-reviewed articles aren't proof, I don't know what proof is. You can listen to the experts, or you can listen to your stoned-out slacker pothead buddies on DU. After all, their judgement is beyond question.

[dysfunctional press]

112. so- if i can find a u.s. government report that says global warming isn't caused by man...

would it put that issue to rest for you as well?

[Alexander]

119. Harvard is not the US Government.

It's a much more respectable institution, and studies from academic sources tend to be better about using the scientific method to arrive at their results and conclusions.

[bmbmd]

193. It's not the government-

it's the seventy-five (seventy-five!) peer-reviewed articles referenced in the report.

[EstimatedProphet]

262. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Since the people that might disagree are apparently stoned-out slackers and all...

[Touchdown]

92. It makes your boyfriends dump you when you light up

...when he's going down on you. I dumped my ex that night. RUDEST fucking thing on Earth!

[OneBlueSky]

94. one word: munchies . . . marijuana can make you fat . . . n/t

.

[killbotfactory]

105. Pot helped me lose weight

Since it allowed me to stop drinking heavily.

30 pounds gone in less than a year. My wife experienced similar results.

:shrug:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

97. I think I'll need to do a little more research to answer your question

Scuse me while I kiss the sky.

[Alexander]

99. Smoking weed is not good for your immune system.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html

"Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker’s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells."

That being said, I used to smoke a great deal, I'm all in favor of legalizing it, and I don't have any problem hanging around stoners, as long as they aren't weird about me not smoking (which some of them can be).

[killbotfactory]

103. Cancer patients smoke it

After chemotherapy, and it helps significantly. How harmful to your immune system can it possibly be?

[Alexander]

106. Yes, it's better for you than DEADLY RADIATION. So?

Chemotherapy is designed to kill your cancer cells just before the point where it would kill you. That's why chemo patients have their hair fall out and generally look like death.

"and it helps significantly."

It helps mainly in stimulating appetite. Chemo patients often lose their appetite, again because of deadly radiation.

"How harmful to your immune system can it possibly be?"

I posted a Harvard medical study for you to read. Are you going to read it, or do you expect me to repeat myself because you can't be bothered to read the study?

[killbotfactory]

108. There are broken links on that page

I can't access the study where it was shown to effect the immune system.

Wouldn't deadly radiation would tend to weaken your immune system? AIDS patients also use it. Has there been any study which shows any of them worse off than patients who don't use marijauna?

[Alexander]

117. The broken links merely direct you to studies you can find through other means.

It's not the links that matter, it's the citations. The article I quoted was properly cited.

"Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses," Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Intiative: Resource Papers, March 1997, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention."

Surely you can find this study through other means.

"Wouldn't deadly radiation would tend to weaken your immune system?"

1. It's hard to understand your question.

2. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if chemo also weakens the immune system.

Assuming that was your question, yes, chemotherapy does weaken the immune system.

"Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can weaken immunity by causing a drop in the number of white blood cells made in the bone marrow. Apart from bone marrow or stem cell transplants, this effect on the bone marrow is temporary."

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=118

"AIDS patients also use it."

Everyone knows herb gives you the munchies. If the problem is lack of appetite, weed could be helpful, and depending on your body it might be worth a short-term weakness in the immune system.

"Has there been any study which shows any of them worse off than patients who don't use marijauna?"

I don't know. Like I said, it depends on your body's needs. If your appetite is suffering but your immune system is manageable, you might find it's worth it to eat some magic brownies.

On the other hand, if your appetite is fine but your immune system isn't, you might not want to.

One size doesn't fit all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. LOL, if you can find them, post them.

"Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses," Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Intiative: Resource Papers, March 1997, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention."

Have you got any citation from a peer reviewed scientific journal?

I mean, something that's an actual, proper study, and not just propaganda?

Let me put it this way, have you got any valid evidence that marijuana lowers the immune system?

[Alexander]

125. If the Journal of Biological Chemistry doesn't convince you, nothing will.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/42345.php

"A group of Japanese scientists has discovered that cannabinoids can cause some white blood cells to lose their ability to migrate to the sites of infection and inflammation. These findings, which appear in the May 5 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry, could have potential use in the development of novel anti-inflammatory drugs.

The cannabinoids are a group of chemicals that include marijuana. These compounds bind to and activate the body's cannabinoid receptors. There are two types of cannabinoid receptor: the peripheral cannabinoid receptor (CB2) which is predominantly found in immune cells, and the central cannabinoid receptor (CB1) which occurs in the central nervous system.

Recent studies have suggested that CB2 may be involved in a wide range of physiologic phenomena related to immunity, although research on this function is still at an early stage. Among the possible immunological roles for CB2 is an involvement in the initiation of white blood cell migration to sites of infection and inflammation."

"I mean, something that's an actual, proper study, and not just propaganda?"

You think that the Clinton administration (which was in office in 1997, in case you didn't know), with its support of a nationwide needle-exchange program, is interested in spreading propaganda about marijuana?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. Alright, give me the cite.

I'll look it up.

:shrug:

[Alexander]

130. Go find the May 5, 2006 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Sorry I don't have a copy. :shrug:

I have an appointment in 10 minutes. I'll discuss this further with you when I get back if you really want, probably within an hour or so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. LOL, you're talking about the Kurihara paper?

Kurihara et. al, 281(18, 12908, 2006?

Is that the paper you're talking about?

Because that paper says nothing about the effects of marijuana on the human immune system. The only reference to marijuana is about its potential treatment for artheriosclerosis. Is in fact an HL60 cell study on CB2 receptors, looking at morphological effects of CB2 activation and inhibitiion on said HL60 cells, and if you were going to extend this study hypothetically to a whole organism, which is scientifically sketchy but what you want to do, then it suggests that a CB2 agonist like THC would boost the immune system, not suppress it.

Maybe you should read the paper next time, eh?

[Alexander]

140. No, I'm not. Maybe you should read the journal instead of making assumptions.

It sounds like you'd rather assume what my sources are than bother to look for them yourself.

Maybe you should read what I cite next time, eh?

:rofl: :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. Then which article in the May 5th, 2006 JBC are you talking about?

Just a page number will do.

[Alexander]

150. If you want page numbers, see post #144 and shut the hell up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

153. None of those are JBC articles.

Have you read any of those articles, Alexander?

[Alexander]

158. They don't need to be. They are cited and you should be able to find them.

That is, if you're interested.

Which, obviously, you aren't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. You claimed there was an article in JBC, May 5th, 2006...

that backed up your claim.

I was only able to find one paper in that issue which even covered the topic, and that did not back up your claim.

So it appears your citation was in error. Do you agree?

Shall we move on to the others?

[Alexander]

163. Yes, and there still is. Not my problem if you don't want to look for it.

"I was only able to find one paper in that issue which even covered the topic, and that did not back up your claim."

The paper you cited wasn't even remotely related to the journal I cited.

Here's what happened:

-I cited a medical journal for you.

-You couldn't find it after 2 minutes, so you gave up.

-You then falsely attributed another article (which you probably pulled out of your ass) to what I cited.

-You keep claiming your article is the same as the journal I cited, when in fact that is not the case.

-You have used your bullshit logic to justify not looking at the numerous, well-sourced articles I posted for you in #144.

"So it appears your citation was in error. Do you agree?"

Nope. Go find the article. You apparently failed to do that.

"Shall we move on to the others?"

I'd love to. You seem stuck on this one article when I cited dozens of others. Are they all bunk? :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

166. Alexander, JBC's not a medical journal.

But I'll have to assume you don't read the JBC often.

"which you probably pulled out of your ass"

Actually, no, the Kurihara paper's right there. I even gave a proper cite if anybody besides you or me (me) actually is interested in reading it.

"You keep claiming your article is the same as the journal I cited, when in fact that is not the case."

Articles and journals are two different things. Articles are kind of like stories, which appear in journals, which are kind of like magazines. Just in case you didn't know.

"You have used your bullshit logic to justify not looking at the numerous, well-sourced articles I posted for you in #144."

I'm perfectly willing to look at your articles cited in post #144, as soon as we clear up this JBC business. Furthermore, if you claim that my logic is flawed, please back up that claim with evidence.

"You seem stuck on this one article when I cited dozens of others. Are they all bunk?"

Probably.

[Alexander]

170. It is a scientific journal dealing with a medical question.

So for our purposes I called it a "medical journal". Is that the best you can do? :rofl:

You can't win the argument on facts, so you're resorting to bullshit technicalities instead. :eyes:

"Actually, no, the Kurihara paper's right there. I even gave a proper cite if anybody besides you or me (me) actually is interested in reading it."

Yes, and it's not referenced in the article I mentioned.

"Articles and journals are two different things."

Stop acting like a patronizing twit. You know very well what I meant, you're just deliberately being obtuse in the hope that you can save face and "score points" with knuckle-draggers who buy your nonsense.

"I'm perfectly willing to look at your articles cited in post #144, as soon as we clear up this JBC business."

Which really means:

Bornaginhooligan: "I'm not willing to look at your articles because they will make me look like a condescending idiot, so I'm going to make any excuse I can not to read anything you cite."

"Furthermore, if you claim that my logic is flawed, please back up that claim with evidence."

If your logic is flawed, I could provide all the evidence in the world and you wouldn't believe it. You know. Because of your flawed logic and all that.

But I think it's telling that the article in the journal I cited, which specifically dealt with marijuana's effect on white blood cell count, was assumed by you to be a completely different article with no mention of same.

It tells me that you don't actually read the bullshit you're spewing. And it's getting near the point where I won't either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

176. What medical question?

Does smoking weed cause immunosuppresion? Because that's the question, then the article's answering "no."

"You can't win the argument on facts, so you're resorting to bullshit technicalities instead."

All in all I'd rather win on facts. But I do think you referencing an article in a journal you haven't read is amusing.

"Yes, and it's not referenced in the article I mentioned."

So which article ARE you referencing?

"Stop acting like a patronizing twit. You know very well what I meant, you're just deliberately being obtuse in the hope that you can save face and "score points" with knuckle-draggers who buy your nonsense."

Alexander, I don't know what you mean at all. You're very clearly having trouble keeping track of very simple concepts. I'm hoping it's because you're a teenager.

"Which really means:

Bornaginhooligan: "I'm not willing to look at your articles because they will make me look like a condescending idiot, so I'm going to make any excuse I can not to read anything you cite."

I've already looked up one article you cited. Then when I pointed out it didn't say what you thought, you pretended you didn't cite it.

"If your logic is flawed, I could provide all the evidence in the world and you wouldn't believe it. You know."

Can you provide ANY evidence?

"But I think it's telling that the article in the journal I cited, which specifically dealt with marijuana's effect on white blood cell count, was assumed by you to be a completely different article with no mention of same."

If you want me to look at a specific article in JBC, any issue, any year, just give me the correct citation. If it happens to support your claim, I'll concede it. If you wish to withdraw the JBC citation, then do so.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. It's much better than pretending you didn't make one.

[Alexander]

182. Whether cannabis decreases white blood cell count.

Which was in the very article I presented to you, which you apparently never bothered to read.

And you accuse ME of not reading things. :rofl:

"There's nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. It's much better than pretending you didn't make one."

You are apparently incapable of the former, so you resort to the latter. And you project on top of that! How lovely.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

187. The article you presented to me...

didn't say anything about either cannabis or decreasing white blood cell count.

:shrug:

[Alexander]

191. Then maybe you aren't familiar with medical definitions.

Again, not my problem. It's yours. Go look up what all those big scary words like "neutrophil" and "leukocyte" mean before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

196. I'm familiar with both terms.

Neutrophil being a type of leukocyte, or in layman terms- white blood cells.

If you want to duke it out on which one of us is more scientifically literate, bring it on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

118. Ooo, Harvard.

:D

[Alexander]

122. And your source is....?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. You're the one making a claim.

Appealing to authority isn't going to help support a claim either.

[Alexander]

127. Read post #125. The Journal of Biological Chemistry says I'm right.

And your source is...?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. I'm not the one making a claim.

Please give a proper citation for the JBC.

If you're unfamiliar with scientific journals, that should include

That would include primary author, volume number, issue number if there is one (JBC should have one), and starting page number.

It'd be great to include all authors, paper title, and ending page number, but that shouldn't be necessary.

[Alexander]

143. All you need to do is find the issue of the journal in question.

You expect me to do your work for you, when you cite nothing backing up your challenge of the journals I'm sourcing?

I'm not writing a research paper here. I'm mentioning where you can find these studies. If you're too impatient to flip through the journal for 5 minutes, that's your problem, not mine.

That's assuming you're actually going to bother looking at it, which I highly doubt. Snark and bullshit seem more your style.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. Listen, kid, here's how this works.

You make a claim, like for example, "widgets cause diarrhea."

OK, fine, that's a claim. But you have to back that up.

You could just provide a link. But that link is going to have to back up the claim.

And that's something you've failed to do.

I'm not asking you to write a research paper, I'm asking you to behave like an adult, and back up your claims.

Now that I've actually found the paper you appear to be talking about, it seems like the paper doesn't say what you say it says. Which says to me maybe you should have done your homework before you made the claim in the first place.

"Snark and bullshit seem more your style."

ORLY? Care to back up that claim?

[Alexander]

148. Post #144 tears your insulting diatribes to shreds.

Now maybe you will act a little bit more like an adult (and admit you were wrong) and a little bit less like an asshole.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

151. Let's finish dealing with post #136.

Is there another article in that journal you want me to read before moving on to the others?

[Alexander]

157. What's the matter? Overwhelmed by too many sources? Poor baby!

Yeah, it sucks being you, I know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

159. Overwhelmed? No.

Simply thorough.

"Yeah, it sucks being you, I know."

Do you suppose, Alexander, that an unbiased outside observer watching this debate would agree with you in this assessment?

[Alexander]

167. You're fooling no one - it's obvious you aren't bothering to look up anything.

"Do you suppose, Alexander, that an unbiased outside observer watching this debate would agree with you in this assessment?"

Absolutely. Because I'm citing articles and you can't be bothered to go find them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. Well, I looked up the JBC issue.

Which is apparently one more issue than you looked up.

[Alexander]

184. Did you find anything in there about cannabinoids and white blood cells?

Because if you didn't, that's a tell-tale sign that you're making shit up.

Again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. Yes.

The Kurihara paper was the only paper in that issue dealing with cannabinoids and white blood cells.

Although I should add that it was really dealing with cannabinoid receptors, not so much the cannabinoids.

[Alexander]

195. And as I pointed out, you DIDN'T EVEN READ IT! It shows the opposite of what you claim!

"Marijuana Suppresses Immune Response

The peripheral cannabinoid receptor (CB2) is a G protein-coupled receptor that is mainly expressed in immune cells. Because these cells are so diverse, it is assumed that CB2 is involved in a wide range of physiologic phenomena related to immunity. Among the possible roles for CB2 is the induction of leukocyte migration to sites of infection and inflammation. The investigation of this role is the subject of this Paper of the Week.

Using an in vitro model of neutrophil migration on blood vessels, Rina Kurihara and colleagues show that CB2 ligands induce increased motility in the cells. However, instead of developing the front/rear polarity typically exhibited by migrating leukocytes, the cells rapidly extended and retracted one or more pseudopods in different directions. Activity of the Rho-GTPase RhoA also decreased in response to CB2 stimulation, whereas Rac and Cdc42 activity increased. Human neutrophils did not experience increased motility or morphologic alterations in response to the ligands, but they did exhibit disrupted polarization and suppressed RhoA activity in response to N-formyl-L-methionyl-L-leucyl-L-phenylalanine (fMLP). These results suggest that CB2 might play a role in regulating excessive inflammatory response by controlling RhoA activation and thereby suppressing neutrophil migration."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

200. Ah, not only did I read, I understood it.

Which is important.

"induce increased motility in the cells."

Motility is a fancy word meaning "being able to move around." Theoretically, more motile neutrophils would be better at fighting infection. Says right there in the paper.

"but they did exhibit disrupted polarization and suppressed RhoA activity"

And?

"These results suggest that CB2 might play a role in regulating excessive inflammatory response by controlling RhoA activation and thereby suppressing neutrophil migration."

Fixed.

[Alexander]

144. Oh look! After 5 seconds I found you all kinds of citations.

Now quit your whining about how I didn't source things "properly".

You're obviously not interested in evidence, since it took me all of 5 seconds to find these.

"AIDS Weekly, p.19, June 28, 1993. (HIV positive marijuana smokers have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia compared to non-marijuana smokers.)

British Medical Association, Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. 1997. P.48...."cannabinoids have been shown to have immuno suppressive effect ..... potentially damaging in individuals whose immune system is already compromised by HIV or chemotherapy."

Cabral, GA et al. Proc Soc Exp Bio Med 1986;182:181-186. (Marijuana causes decreased resistance to diseases such as herpes.)

Cabral GA et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 93-105, 1991. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)

Cabral GA, Vasquez R. Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection. CRC Press 1993:137-153. (Delta-9-THC suppresses macrophage extrinsic anti-herpes virus activity.)

Caiffa WT, Vlahov D, Graham NM, Astemborski J, Solomon L, Nelson KE, and Munoz A. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150:1493-1498, 1994. (Marijuana smoking increases the incidence of bacterial pneumoniae in AIDS patients. HIV positive smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers.)

Cusher et al. Cellular Immunology Vol 154:99-108, 1994. (Low levels of THC inhibited tumor necrosis factor thereby weakening the killing activity of lymphocytes against tumor cells. Marijuana's implication in a number of chronic diseases reflects its harmful impact on the immune system.)

Daaka Y, Zhu W, Friedman H, Klein T W. Induction of Interleukin-2 alpha gene by Delta-9-THC is mediated by nuclear factor kB and CBa cannabinoid receptor. DNA and Cell Biology 1997;16:301-309. (THC might augment AIDS development because of an increase in NK-kB which is known to activate the HIV genome and increase retro viral replication.)

Djeu J et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 57-62, 1991. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)

Djeu et al. Drugs of Abuse Immunity and Immunodeficiency, 1991. (THC is able to interfere with the function of white blood cells taken from humans. Both neutrophils, which fight bacterial infection, and mononuclear cells of the immune system, which fight viruses, were suppressed by various concentrations of THC.)

Fleisher M, Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1991; 115:578-579. (Aspergillosis and marijuana.)

Gross G, Roussaki A, Ikenberg H, Drees N. Dermatologica 1991; 183:203-207. (Genital warts do not respond to systemic recombinant interferon alfa-2 treatment during cannabis consumption.)

Fligiel SF et al. Chest, 1997. (Marijuana smoking damages the cilia which protect the lungs.)

Ford and Norris, Journal of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, Vol 7: 389-396, 1994. (This study on the effects of the use of alcohol and marijuana in the context of sexual relationships and the impact of these substances on the consistency of condom use by urban minority youth showed an increase in unprotected sex.)

Freidman H, Klein TW, Newton C, Daaka Y. Advances in Experimental and Medical Biology, Vol. 373, pp 103-113, 1995. (Individuals who chronically use marijuana may be more subject to adverse reaction to common bacteria and viruses in the environment than non-users.)

Hamadeh and associates. Chest, Vol. 94/2, pp.432-433, 1988. "Invasive aspergillosis has become a significant cause of death in immunosuppressed patients". Physicians should be aware of this potentially lethal complication of marijuana use in compromised hosts such as patients with AIDS or malignancies.)

Juel-Jensen, BE. 1972 Brit. Med. J. iv:296. (Cannabis and recurrent herpes simplex.)

Kusher DI, et al. Cellular Immunology Vol 154:99-108. 1994. Effect of the Psychoactive Metabolite of Marijuana, Delta 9 THC. (Study reports that test tube studies show that marijuana metabolites are capable of impairing the ability of human immune cells to kill tumors and destroy fungal cells.)

Lopez-Cepero M, Friedman M, Klein T, and Friedman J. 1986 J. Leukocyte Biol.39 : 679. (THC induced suppression of macrophage spreading and phagocytic activity in vitro.)

Miguez-Berbano and associates, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1994;34-1031. (Smoking tobacco or marijuana reduced antioxidant levels in HIV-infected patients. Vitamin E levels were significantly lower in marijuana users, as well as cigarette smokers, compared to non-smoking HIV infected subjects. "The results of this study indicate that both marijuana and cigarettes have a detrimental effect on vitamin E status of HIV-1 infected individuals. These findings are of particular concern in the light of the important role of Vitamin E in immune processes, inhibition of viral activation and the death of immune cells."

Mishkin EM, and Cabral GA 1985.

J Gen. Virol. 66: 2539. (Delta-9-THC decreases host resistance to herpes simplex virus type 2 vaginal infection in the B6C3F1 mouse.)

Murison G, Chubb CB, Maeda S, Gemmell MA and Huberman E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1987;84: 5414-5418. (Cannabinoids induce incomplete maturation of cultured human leukemia cells.)

Newton CA et al. Inject Infect Immun 62:4015-4020, 1994. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)

Nieman RB et al. AIDS 7:705-710, 1993. (HIV positive smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non smokers.)

Schwartz RH, Journal of Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 38, p. 531, May 1987. (Marijuana use is a factor in preparing the ground for HIV infection.)

Sidney et al. American Journal of Public Health, 87:585-590, Marijuana Research Review, 7/97. (Study reflected double mortality in AIDS patients who used marijuana.)

Spector S et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288:47-56, 1991. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)

Tashkin D, Baldwin G. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine vol 156, 1997. (Cells from both marijuana smokers and cocaine smokers demonstrated severe limitation in their ability to kill bacteria and tumor cells. The cells involved, alveolar macrophages, are part of the immune system of the lung. They are responsible for the elimination of foreign substances such as tumor and infection.)

Taylor DN, et al. New England Journal of Medicine 1982; 306:1249-1254. (Salmonellosis associated with marijuana: a multistate outbreak traced by plasmid fingerprinting.)

Timpone et al. 1997 AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Vol.13 No.4, Marijuana Research Review, 7/97. (Poor results were shown using THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, to treat AIDS wasting syndrome.)

Tindall B, et al. Aust N Z J Med 18:8-15, 1988. (HIV positive marijuana smokers have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia compared to non-marijuana smokers. Marijuana smoking increases the progression to full-blown AIDS in HIV positive persons.)

Transplantation, Vol. 61, June 27, 1996. (Marijuana smoke transmits aspergillosis, a fungus having up to a 90% fatality rate if contracted by transplant patients. Researchers have strongly warned against the use of marijuana in immuno-compromised patients such as those with AIDS, chronic granulomatous disease, bone marrow transplants and those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer.)

Voth EA, Schwartz RH. Medicinal applications of delta 9 THC and marijuana: a perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997: 126:791-8. (Marijuana is not a panacea. It is an impure weed that introduces immuno compromised patients to bacteria, fungi, and other toxic complications. We recommend sticking with predictable medical therapies and not deviating from FDA approved medicine in exchange for herbal remedies.

Wallace JM and associates. Chest, Vol. 105:847-852. (Tobacco smokers had lower percentages of cells in their small airways that had the marker for CD4 or helper T-cells. Marijuana use had the opposite effect of lowering CD8 positive cells, so-called suppressor cells, at the expense of CD4 cells. Tobacco and marijuana have effects on immune cells and blood lymphocyte populations that differ from each other, both in type and magnitude.)

Wambach KG, Byers JB, Harrison DF, Levine P, Imershein AW, Quadagno DM, Maddox K. Journal of Drug Education 1992;22(2):131-46. (Substance use among women at risk for HIV infection.)

Watzl et al. Drugs of Abuse Immunity and Immunodeficiency, 1991. (THC is able to interfere with the function of white blood cells taken from humans. Both neutrophils, which fight bacterial infection, and mononuclear cells of the immune system, which fight viruses, were suppressed by various concentrations of THC.)

Watzl B et al. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 63-70, 1991. (THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, causes immunosuppression.)

Whitfield RM, Bechtel LM, Starich GH. The impact of ethanol and Marinol/marijuana usage on HIV+/AIDS patients undergoing AZT, DDC, or DDI therapy. Alcohol, Clin Exp Res 1997; 21:122-127. (Marinol/marijuana resulted in lower CD4+ counts and elevated amylase levels within the DDI group. Marinol/marijuana use associated with declining health status in AZT and AZT/DDC groups but did not appear to have worsening health status at one year follow up.)

Zhu W and colleagues. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 274:1001-1007, 1995. (THC causes abnormalities in immune molecules.)"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

149. If I look up those papers, Alexander...

are they really going to say what they claim you say?

Not like the other paper?

[Alexander]

152. It doesn't matter, you'll never actually look them up.

And if you do, you'll realize they say exactly what I claimed, but you'll never admit it, because you're too busy acting like a total dumbass and can't admit when you are wrong.

You lost. Better luck next time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. Alexander, I just looked up the JBC article you cited.

When it was pretty clear you haven't.

"You lost. Better luck next time"

Do you really think so? Really?

[Alexander]

161. No, you didn't. The JBC article specifically mentioned white blood cell count.

Your article, which you probably pulled out of your ass, neglected to mention that at all.

"When it was pretty clear you haven't."

Then how come the content of the article I cited and your article doesn't match up? Quit acting like an idiot and read what you're citing.

"Do you really think so? Really?"

I know so. Because I'm reading what I'm citing, and you aren't.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

162. Is this the Kurihara paper or isn't it?

If not, what's the page number?

[Alexander]

165. No, it is not the "Kurihara paper". You falsely said that it was, over and over.

As for the page number, if you actually find the journal (which I doubt you ever will), it will be a matter of minutes before you are able to determine the page number for yourself.

This says nothing about all the other articles I posted which do have page numbers. I noticed you aren't bothering to look at any of them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. Actually, I asked if that was the right paper.

"if you actually find the journal (which I doubt you ever will)"

How could I have found the Kurihara paper if I hadn't found the journal? The Kurihara paper is IN the journal you're citing. Favored paper status even.

"I noticed you aren't bothering to look at any of them."

Not yet. I'm waiting for you to stop giving me the run around.

[Alexander]

173. Which it isn't.

"The Kurihara paper is IN the journal you're citing. Favored paper status even."

Rina Kurihara has contributed many research papers to the JBC, some within the same year. It doesn't mean that's the one I'm referring to.

"Not yet. I'm waiting for you to stop giving me the run around."

Which really means...

Bornaginhooligan: "I'm waiting for you to stop responding to me so that this thread will fall off the front page, because I don't want impartial observers to realize how I'm acting like a condescending idiot."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. Er...

I was talking about the Kurihara paper in the specific issue you mentioned.

The May 5th, 2006.

Which should be a huge issue, since Ruri Kurihara only shows one hit using JBC's author search engine.

:shrug:

[Alexander]

190. The best part is that you didn't even READ the Kurihara paper!

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/281/18/e99910

"Marijuana Suppresses Immune Response"

"The peripheral cannabinoid receptor (CB2) is a G protein-coupled receptor that is mainly expressed in immune cells. Because these cells are so diverse, it is assumed that CB2 is involved in a wide range of physiologic phenomena related to immunity. Among the possible roles for CB2 is the induction of leukocyte migration to sites of infection and inflammation. The investigation of this role is the subject of this Paper of the Week.

Using an in vitro model of neutrophil migration on blood vessels, Rina Kurihara and colleagues show that CB2 ligands induce increased motility in the cells. However, instead of developing the front/rear polarity typically exhibited by migrating leukocytes, the cells rapidly extended and retracted one or more pseudopods in different directions. Activity of the Rho-GTPase RhoA also decreased in response to CB2 stimulation, whereas Rac and Cdc42 activity increased. Human neutrophils did not experience increased motility or morphologic alterations in response to the ligands, but they did exhibit disrupted polarization and suppressed RhoA activity in response to N-formyl-L-methionyl-L-leucyl-L-phenylalanine (fMLP). These results suggest that CB2 might play a role in regulating excessive inflammatory response by controlling RhoA activation and thereby suppressing neutrophil migration."

So the very article you cite as evidence that cannabis doesn't cause any immune system weakness actually turns out to have shown the very opposite of what you claimed!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

We're done. You're clearly out of your element. Thanks for the entertainment, though. It was a good laugh.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

201. See post #200.

"So the very article you cite as evidence that cannabis doesn't cause any immune system weakness actually turns out to have shown the very opposite of what you claimed!"

Really? Where does it say that?

[Scout]

171. i'm on your side 'hooligan

just out here observing ... fun watching Alexander do the twist for you!

[Alexander]

175. If you're supporting someone who cites nothing...

Then I'm afraid you're beyond reason and logic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

178. Err...

what would you like me to cite?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

180. Exciting, ain't it?

It's like watching somebody paint themselves into a corner of the grave they just dug for themselves.

[Alexander]

197. Yes, arguing with you is exactly like that.

But since you aren't smart enough to get out of that corner, it eventually gets boring.

So I'm done. See ya!

[Scout]

226. now THAT was funny! declare victory and leave! n/t

[ismnotwasm]

115. THC Receptors are found all over the brain

is my understanding. There is some research being done on marijuana, or it's active chemical components and certain types of tumor reduction.

What I would be interested in finding out, (I could look it up but I'm lazy right now)is is there a potential use in autoimmune disorders that rely on immunosuppressents?

I work in transplant, so I know the question would be very complicated given what we're learning about the immune system.

[Luna_C_06]

101. The first time I used pot

I was just 13, (yeah, I know that was too young) but I still some how made 1st chair flute player, the B team in volleyball, and the lowest grade I had was an 89, and that was just because my teacher lost my lab report. My friend who bought the pot however went on to use things like XTC and acid. Like someone else said earlier in this thread, it does affect different people in different ways.

Now, I don't use it for fun. I use it for pain. I've been a type 1 diabetic since I was 3 and I developed neuropathy almost 4 years ago when I was 19, and after that my heart rate started to skyrocket, so yeah now pot really helps me with pain and my nerves.

[cgrindley]

102. You're asking the internet for health advice... obviously you've damaged your brain (nt)

[devilgrrl]

134. I merely stated a opinion - it is you that is suffering from brain damage.

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bac511]

104. my ex smoked...

And he's a total dumbass! Does that count?

[wintersoulja]

107. marijuana propaganda is bad for you

The bedrock principle of reefer madness is really to gauge mallebility of public sentiment.
Despite the open defiance of the laws and prohibitions by people in power as well as less elite consumers, besides the corporate benefits, their is a MKULTRA aspect to the long running propaganda.
Its easy for practitioners of propaganda to see how many citizens can be shamed into compliance or complicity with an insane policy and pressure from simply advertisements.
Considering the paucity of actual enforcement (other than when used to contravene states attempts at compassionate use) its almost entirely a mental exercise, with quantifiable results over time.
Wonder why they dont use the same tactics against meth or coke?

[devilgrrl]

111. I all but figured.

But let me tell you, some of the responses to this make me wonder whose smoking what.

[Contrary1]

110. You need an unbiased opinion ...

Send me your stash, as well as all of your friends'. Those with no stash can send me crunchy snacks.

I'll get back to you in a few years.

[EnviroBat]

124. I like weed.

The older I get, the more paranoid it makes me though. It does open the doors of creation for me, and I as only do the band thing a couple of times a week I use it sparingly. Every chronic user that I have ever know PERSONALLY, (just wanted to be clear that I'm not making a blanket generalization here), has been a mumbling dip-shit. People that I've know for years, and smoke regularly have become some of the most forgetful, back-assed losers I've ever known. Now I can't say that it was the weed what done it to em, but it sure seems suspect. My dad had a word for them back in the 70's, I'd hear him refer to some of his friends as "burnouts". I know what he was talking about now.

[nonconformist]

129. Marijuana is HORRIBLE for you

If you're on a diet. :smoke:

Actually, weed is the only thing that helps with my chronic pain, and it's a hell of a lot safer than eating Motrin every few hours.

[water]

133. It's not good for your lungs, and some people get extremely sick...

... but it's up to the individual to decide what goes into his/her body.

[KillCapitalism]

137. It can be bad for the lungs, but there's a way around that.

One of these removes a lot of the lung damaging toxins:

http://www.marijuanavaporizer.org/Volcano-Vaporizer.html

[GaYellowDawg]

135. "Prove to me that evolution is real"

That's exactly what this post title sounds like - one of those fundamentalists who will not ever change his/her mind, even though evolution is absolutely real and demonstrable. You're not going to believe anything that anyone posts because you already have your mind made up. And no, I don't care to waste my time with it. I am interested, however, in how many indignant replies I get from people that only read the title of my reply and not the text. :evilgrin:

[skypilot]

142. Prove to me that intelligent design is real.

What are you, some kind of knuckle-dragging freep...?

Oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

[THUNDER HANDS]

139. it depends on the type of person you are

if you have an addictive personality, you should probably avoid it, as you should all drugs.

Not because it's physically addictive, but the longer you smoke it, the shorter your high is and the more you have to smoke to get you back to the days when you could smoke a little bit and be high for a few hours.

[Mike03]

141. From today's Medical Headlines: "..Smokers face rapid lung destruction..."

"Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction - As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers"

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94896.php

Although I advocate medicinal use of marijuana, I'm not for or against the recreational use of Marijuana, and frankly could care less if people smoke it, but I do regularly check all new study results and breaking stories on health in general. The jury is still out on marijuana's risks versus benefits. You can find studies that argue it is practically good for the lungs.

[LogansPapa]

164. I was a coward to give up.....

Someone that was dear to me smoked pot to the point of ending our 23 year relationship. She’s a crane operator with the Longshoreman’s Union here in Long Beach and had waited eight years to finally get this extremely focus intensive position. I tried to intervene for over 18 months and then had to cut her loose. Despite me trying to save her from killing someone on the docks - I just gave up. A cowardly and self-preservation thing to do, but there was no way to fix it. She couldn’t go more than 90 minutes without smoking it. I pray to God she doesn’t squash some poor soul.

[Jimbo S]

168. Because it impairs your judgment?

I wouldn't want to work next to someone who was high.

I wouldn't want to ride in a car with a high driver.

[conscious evolution]

270. I would rather work with a stoner than a drunk.

Paranoia makes for safer work sites.

[King Coal]

174. What about your lungs? Or are you going to eat it?

[Redstone]

181. Uh, stoners, for example? How many successful stoners do you know?

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

183. Bill Clinton.

Carl Sagan.

George Washington.

Jesus.

[Redstone]

185. Bullshit, and I'm surprised I've even replying to this.

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

188. They all smoked the buddha.

They were all successful.

Sorry if it upsets you.

[Redstone]

199. Yeah. sure. Stoners, all. There's a difference between "smoking the Buddha"

and being a stoner.

I am positive that you understand that, and eaually positive that you'll deny understanding it, just to be your usual agrumentative and irritating self.

I'm not in the mood to deal with your game tonight.

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Really?

What's the difference? The successful ones aren't stoners?

[devilgrrl]

198. Would Billionaire Richard Branson suffice? How about Bill Maher?

Would you consider either of those individuals as successful?

Oh, and then there's Aaron Sorkin - oh, and Paul McCartney.


Wow, what a bunch of slackers!

:sarcasm:

I swear some of the responses in this thread are living proof that you don't have to use anything to be stupid.

[Redstone]

207. A stoner, though I'm sure you already know this, is not someone who smokes dope

once in a while like people who drink have a drink.

I'm sure you know that a "stoner" is the MJ equivalent of a drunk.

But I'm just as sure you won't acknowledge that you know the difference, for whatever reason you have, so I'm out of this thread. Should have known better than to point out any drawbacks to people overdoing it with the Perfectly Harmless Holy Marijuana in the first place.

Because, as we all know, you can smoke as much of that, as often as you can, and it'll NEVER cause you any problems. Why would I argue with such a Universal Truth?

Redstone

[devilgrrl]

211. Where the fuck in this thread have I mentioned the amount of use involved

Jesus H. Christ!

:nuke:

Just make shit up everyone - move those goal posts!

[Bennyboy]

209. My Father is a multi millionaire.....

and (even though he is a prick) has smoked weed everyday since the fifties.

And here are some of the sucessful people that toked:http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/who_celebtokers.html

Shakespeare. Bob Marley. John lennon, Shirly McLaine to name a couple....

[devilgrrl]

212. But he just smokes - he's not stoner - don't you know the difference?

:sarcasm:

[Bennyboy]

215. Oh, I am too stoned to appreciate the diffference!

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Another One......
Just like the other one
And pass it over to me.....

[devilgrrl]

217. But but but but it can cause lung problems and make parts of your brain inactive for weeks on end

gawd forbid that you should get behind the wheel!



Same old tired bullshit from the 70's.

[Bennyboy]

219. That's why it is illegal to study it in the US....

Being a schedule I drug, it is illegal to do any research in the US. No research no truth and the propoganda lives on and on....

[devilgrrl]

221. That won't stop a lot of people here from posting the propaganda. And buying it.

Have you read some of the shit posted? Un-Fucking-Real!

[Bennyboy]

225. Truly unbelievable....

How they still believe it...

[Scout]

227. me

i smoke daily, i have for years

i've held down a job, and changed jobs upwards several times, over the past 20 some years (i was unemployed for a time but it had absolutely nothing to do with pot smoking)

i own my home, i'm married, we pay our bills

i've never traded sex for pot, never traded or hocked possessions for pot

i have friends and family just like me

i say people that claim marijuana use fucked up their lives would have fucked up lives even if they didn't smoke pot

in my personal experience, the people with the most fucked up lives have been the alcoholics, not the pot smokers

[Djinn]

235. well

I've managed to always work in jobs where my colleagues have degrees (I'm a drop out)

I spent ten years in very well paid media roles

I volunteer my time for refugee and labor issues and have succesfully raised the profiles of and donations to many worthy organisations.

I sleep, on average less than 4-5 hours a night

I smoke more than most people you'll meet and regularly have to dispel the bullshit stereotypes people like you propagate.

[stranger81]

238. Carl Sagan was a highly successful example . . . . .

didn't seem to impair his rational thinking skills one iota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

[RadiationTherapy]

258. I know a lot who look at success as free time to play music and

hang with friends and go hiking and biking and skiing and swimming. I know many stoners who work, what you would no doubt categorize as unsuccessful, jobs to save money to travel and have wonderful stories as a result. I know many stoners who have found more in spirituality than millionaires find in the bank. I know many stoners who are poor, but have experienced major satisfaction from expressing themselves artistically. Most of these people are not inspired by my "successful" MIL who worked 80-100 hours a week managing a major hotel in PHX missing out on her daughters' teen years (and their "meth years"), but made 100k+ per year.

I know what "success" means in our economy focused culture, but it is a small concept compared to what is available to the human experience.

[GumboYaYa]

277. Bwahhahaaaa

Here are a few:

From the world of music, Willie Nelson, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespies, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Sting, Thelonius Monk....

From the world of literature, Alexander Dumas, Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson, Ken Kessey, Victor Hugo...

From politics/activism, Al Gore, Abbie Hoffman, Thomas Jefferson....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

189. It can cause mental health problems, among other things.

The evidence that cannabis can cause or aggravate schizophrenia is fairly compelling.

It's also dangerous in pregnacy, I believe, although less so that e.g. cigarettes.

It's significantly less dangerous than tobacco, certainly.

[Thothmes]

192. I expect smoking a joint

now and then does no one any physical harm. If you bump consumption up to the leve of say cigarettes, I suspect that some damage is being done. dont care if a person smokes mj every once in a while. I would thought prefer that the pilot of the air plane I am on no not smoke a joint within a dozen hours of take off. I would really hope that my heart surgeon not have had joint for some time before he cuts on me and I would also hope that the kids school bus driver not smoke grass during the school week. These same hoped for restrictions also apply to a couple of shots of Jack Daniels before they go to work.

[LogansPapa]

203. Re: Pilots.....

Elevated levels of urinary metabolites are found within hours of exposure and remain detectable for 3-10 days after smoking.

Shouldn't think they're risk it.

[Thothmes]

210. One would think not, but

some people will try to get away with it if they think they can.

[LogansPapa]

220. True, but....

Pilots - for the most part - tend to be some pretty smart folks. And when the "a**" falls out of an aircraft (aka "stall situation") they don't want to be the guy with 180 or souls setting behind them and not being able to react in 'real time'.

[Thothmes]

251. Tell that to the two pilots

arrested here about a year ago. They stopped by the airport gin mill, had a couple the tried to get on their airplane. The security check point folks nabbed them and turned them. Your are correct, the vast majority of pilots are very smart, level headed, and dedicated. But as with any human endeavor, there is always a very small minority that will press their luck.

[timtom]

202. Are you serious?

At age 65, after having quit for 20 years, I'm on the edge of taking it up again.

I've got glaucoma, you know.

(Not that that means anything...)

[rAVES]

204. I smoked a joint (didnt inhale) when I was 15 and now I'm a crack whore!

[Chovexani]

205. It's the only safe thing to relieve my gf's pain

My girlfriend has a myriad of health problems, and can get in a great deal of pain. The doctors have had her on Vicodin, morphine, all kinds of chemical shit that exacerbated her other issues. Weed helps her manage her pain in a way that nothing else does, and it doesn't have the nasty side effects of painkillers.

Pot is only dangerous to Big Pharma, they don't want people managing their pain in a natural way because they can't make money off it. :shrug:

[Botany]

206. Wow DUers seem to know alot about dope.

:rofl:

Pop Quiz

Short answer & Fill in the Blank
Thai Stick is ......

Don't Bogart that joint my Freind .....

..... Gold

The plant with the THC is the ........

"Hey hey my my rock and roll will .....

Duncan Hines Double Fudge .........

Double Bonus extra credit problem

Finish This song.

pass it to me baby, pass it to me slow, take some time to smile a bit before you let it go,
'cause we are ................... and put a good buzz on.

[devilgrrl]

216. Judging from many of the responses - I'd beg to differ.

Sounds to me like a lot folks here have never tried it to begin with and are basing their opinions on watching 'Reefer Madness' and reading 'Go Ask Alice'.

What a bunch of dumb non-stoned stoners. :eyes:

[devilgrrl]

208. Thank you all for not swaying my opinion one way or another.

And proving that you don't have to smoke or drink anything to be dumb as a box of rocks.

Now back to your regularly scheduled routine of pretending that you're healthier and morally superior to the rest of us.

:hi:

[Prophet 451]

213. Um

The only way I can think of that pot might be bad for you is if you drive under the influence or use it excessively. Used responsibly, it isn't bad for you which is why I've been part of the legalise campaign here (the UK) for about fifteen years.

Hold the bong hit though, hurts my throat. I'll share a blunt if you got one :)

[Dr Fate]

214. Too much smoke will give you a cough.

So eat it, or use a vaporizer when possible.

[piesRsquare]

218. Images are too large to post here, but...

Check out these brain scan images:

Normal (scroll to bottom):
http://amenclinics.com/bp/atlas/ch2.php


Effects of Marijuana use (scroll down a bit):
http://amenclinics.com/bp/atlas/ch15.php


Food for thought...

[citizen snips]

223. it's illegal.

[Mike03]

224. If you are truly curious, I can send you a bibliography of

the most current books about whether marijuana is or is not hazardous.

PM me if you want to.

Truly, I think there are many more dangerous substances, many of which are legal.

[Djinn]

230. No-one that was adversely effected by it?

Then you don't know too many people with heavy habits.

Like myself.

I think ALL drugs should be legal - I'd much prefer to go to my local store and by a pouch of weed that a farmer has paid tax on.

HOWEVER as someone who's smoked up to an ounce a week for 17 years I call bullshit on your claim that it doesn't effect one negatively.

I gave up an addiction to amphetamines without too much stress - I have never given up pot. When I try to I can't eat or sleep.

Then there's the fact that the vast majority of users smoke it leading to lung cancer etc

This isn't a "drugs are bad mmmkay" post. I love drugs, I have used almost every kind available and think adults should be able to make up their owns minds, but to claim marijuana has no deleterious effects is utterly wrong

[devilgrrl]

232. "as someone who's smoked up to an ounce a week for 17 years"

Wow! You've got me beat for several lifetimes... I'll be well into my 140's before I come close to reaching that level.

"Then there's the fact that the vast majority of users smoke it leading to lung cancer etc"

Where is that fact? Please post a link, I need to see that.

[Djinn]

233. you need a link

to tell you inhalation of smoke causes cancer?

[devilgrrl]

237. in regard to pot? yes.

:popcorn:

[Djinn]

241. so you think

all other smoke EXCEPT marijuana is carcinogenic?

Very few people smoke unmixed so they also get all the carcinogens in cigarrete smoke as well.

Cannabis contains roughly twice as many carcinogenic hydrocarbons as manufactured cigarettes. It is also contains more of the enzyme (CYP1A1) which converts those carbons to their carcinogenic form.

Surprised that smoke = not good to inhale is questioned.

[devilgrrl]

242. Thanks but I'd be more concerned if I smoked an ounce a month for 17 straight years.

Which I don't btw.

:eyes:

[Djinn]

243. I said "UP TO"

and it was a week not a month but if you think smoking is not carcinogenic then I guess you have super lungs

[devilgrrl]

244. Anyone that smokes that much in a week is downright silly.

I can't even fathom that. How'd that happen?

Most people I know are satisfied with a hit here and there. Up to an ounce a week? Whoa!

[High Plains]

266. Read the research:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03



The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

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

[Madrone]

231. Um hello! It makes you go all CRAZY and stuff -

-before you take an axe to your family! Duh!!

Proof:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU






:D

[dorkulon]

234. I am too damn high to argue with you right now. /nt

[LostInAnomie]

236. It led to a pretty painful burn on my fingertips...

... and it made my thumb and index finger nails a little off color.

Plus, you end up spending a lot of cash on cologne trying to cover up the smell on your clothes.

[Drum]

240. I hope Swamprat won't mind, but I love this pic he posted

some time ago.




Smoke on :smoke:

[kineneb]

245. having watched several relatives drink themselves to death

and several others die from overuse of tobacco, no one can tell me that pot is dangerous. Not after you have watched someone die from liver cirrhosis.
The gov. can spread all the lies it wants, I am not buying them.

Now meth, ugh. Serious HazMat issues.

[Bonobo]

246. Check out my post in the Science forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=37702&mesg_id=37702

[Echo In Light]

250. This is one of those threads that accurately reveals the prevailing ideologies

"Success" is defined by establishment/corporate standards, wrought with typically cold blooded yuppie rhetoric based in greed, superficiality and name calling i.e. rightward smackdown style of debate

The establishment, so to speak, realized the ideological slant required to more effectively sell the phony "war on drugs" long, long ago. There's a brilliant doc film, Grass, which outlines how/why official govt propaganda regarding reefer has been culturally implemented over the decades. Little wonder then how there are such marked overall approaches, perceptions and worldviews between those who are either "pro," or at least neutral, leaning against criminalization, and those haters who quite clearly harbor a great deal of hostility and resentment for pot smokers and what they represent... even more so than the actual substance itself.

[Echo In Light]

253. Link for "Grass," narrated by Woody Harrelson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYQy5uYAyJI

[devilgrrl]

255. Oh, put down the bong you stoner, you're harshing everyone's mellow.

:sarcasm:

Great post btw.

[Echo In Light]

257. Ha...isn't that bass-akward?

[Bennyboy]

252. Study suggests Pot can inhibit cancer growth!!

From an email so I can't link the story...

Marijuana inhibits cancer tumour growth

22/01/2008 8:00:00 AM.

The active ingredient in marijuana may suppress tumour invasion in
highly invasive cancers, according to new research in Germany.

Cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, are already used
medically to reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, such as
pain, weight loss and vomiting.

But the new study, published in the latest issue of the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, finds that the compounds may also have an
anti-cancer effect.

However, more research is needed to determine whether the laboratory
results would hold true in humans, the authors wrote.

Dr Robert Ramer and Dr Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in
Germany investigated whether and by what mechanism cannabinoids
inhibit tumour cell invasion.

Cannabinoids did suppress tumour cell invasion and stimulated the
expression of TIMP-1, an inhibitor of a group of enzymes that are
involved in tumour cell invasion.

"To our knowledge, this is the first report of TIMP-1-dependent anti-
invasive effects of cannabinoids," the two researchers said in a joint
statement.

"This signalling pathway may play an important role in the anti-
metastatic action of cannabinoids, whose potential therapeutic benefit
in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in
clinical trials," the authors said.


Australian Associated Press

[DIKB]

254. I have proof.

The munchies gave me spare tires. . . . of course that could also be blamed on the Funyuns, lol.

[Echo In Light]

256. "Gateway" drug ... to Doritos

[RadiationTherapy]

259. Mucous. Small bits of mucous form and cause irritation in the upper respiratory

system causing slight, but persistant coughs. My brother coughs every few minutes. Just a little. Harmless, really. :)

[paulk]

261. all the proof you need...

[Echo In Light]

263. Gallop poll on legalization

Unsure just how accurate this may or may not be...but is food for thought:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/Who-Supports-Marijuana-Legalization.aspx

...note the similarities between conservatives and moderates.

[devilgrrl]

264. I'm noting the similarities between conservatives and DUer's

and how little difference there is.

Kind of disconcerting, though not surprising.

[Echo In Light]

265. I hear ya. Decades of corporate propaganda will bring about those grim results

[Maine-ah]

267. I don't think it's bad for you

though I do know many people that moved on to harder drugs after marijuana.

[casus belli]

278. Inhaling burning materials into the lungs isn't good for you...

That's basic common sense. If you're "smoking" marijuana, it's just naive to think that nothing harmful is happening to you physiologically. Vaporization may be a totally different case, but how many people do you know who use this method?

I spent a lot of time as an advocate for marijuana legalization in my 20s. I still advocate its legalization, but to suggest that smoking is harmless is not the way to go. Ignoring the negative aspects only invalidates the entire argument, and there are plenty of valid arguments for its legalization without pretending that there is no down side.

Now get off your couch and go do something, you slacker... :)